- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: "Masters of the Air" | WWII Miniseries | Apple+ Trailer
Posted on 3/10/24 at 10:23 am to tide06
Posted on 3/10/24 at 10:23 am to tide06
quote:
Agreed but the evolution from Thunderbolts with very limited range to Lightning’s with moderate range to P51s to P51s with drop tanks meant an ever expanding ring of concentric circles within which they could hammer targets with near impunity.
It is so funny we talk about this when the P-47 was just as capable of long range duty. Had army provided the drop tanks that were needed to make the 2nd Schweinfurt Raid in Oct. '43, the P-47 had the ability to make the trip with the bombers and back. Take into account as they pilots got more familiar with their aircraft, they could push their range out a bit more.
Funny how when we take a look at source material at the time we compare like-aircraft. 47 models in Oct '43 and 51 models in Oct '43 (not 51s in late '44.....they have roughly the same range. It is sad you have to go to aircraft manuals at the precise time/month to look at fuel burns for taxi/takeoff/climb/cruise and look at photos of drop tanks at the time to see this.
Not saying it was some sort of conspiracy, but the P-47 had the same capabilities if supplied with the proper drop tanks. Another note, a P-51 needs to be 70% fuel to have no maneuver restrictions. A fully-fueled P-47 had no restrictions.
Both were fine aircraft.
Posted on 3/11/24 at 10:22 am to BottomlandBrew
quote:
This series has the same fault that The Pacific did in that there is just too much to show for a 9-10 episode series. The timeline is too long, the characters too geographically spread out, attrition adding to the number of characters, and Hollywood's need for personal drama lines makes it too coarse.
quote:
MotA and Pacific combine multiple source materials, multiple timelines, and multiple places. It's just too much to ask for 9-10 episodes, especially when budget is brought in to the picture.
I'm still really liking it, though. You just have to take it for what it is.
I agree although I think The Pacific did it a good bit better. I feel like there was far more content jammed into the Pacific. To me, it seems like MotA folks felt like they didn't have enough storyline for the general audience and so they're stretching it and supplementing it (when in actuality it probably needs 2 more episodes of more substantive content).
I don't know much about the industry, but it strikes me as a balance between quick, approachable, easily digestible stuff that'll get more immediate appeal and the grittier, longer to develop stuff that'll make a series stand up over time. I think this leans toward the former a good bit more than BOB/Pacific.
It's still good though.
Posted on 3/11/24 at 10:45 am to Pettifogger
Not sure if I could handle a Band of Brothers type of series focused on the ungodly grind of one or two bomber crews defying death again and again, mission after mission, until they beat the odds and reach their 25 or 30 mission goal and go home. I think this series did a good enough job of getting the message across to us.
We're enjoying the hell out of it and don't think that we've had a wasted episode yet. I'll be sad to not have this on Friday nights going forward.
We're enjoying the hell out of it and don't think that we've had a wasted episode yet. I'll be sad to not have this on Friday nights going forward.
Posted on 3/11/24 at 12:50 pm to Fewer Kilometers
Yeah I have enjoyed it a lot. But it does feel like they have a LOT of shite to cram into the final episode in order to wrap things up with (assumedly) the end of the war.
All in all I think I'd rank this one a little above The Pacific for me (Pacific didn't resonate with me too much for whatever reason). Maybe after reflection they'll be about on par with each other, and both vastly behind BoB obviously. But I also didn't expect MotA to be on the same level as BoB, and I think I (unfairly) did sort of expect that with The Pacific.
All in all I think I'd rank this one a little above The Pacific for me (Pacific didn't resonate with me too much for whatever reason). Maybe after reflection they'll be about on par with each other, and both vastly behind BoB obviously. But I also didn't expect MotA to be on the same level as BoB, and I think I (unfairly) did sort of expect that with The Pacific.
Posted on 3/11/24 at 1:15 pm to BottomlandBrew
quote:
This series has the same fault that The Pacific did in that there is just too much to show for a 9-10 episode series. The timeline is too long, the characters too geographically spread out, attrition adding to the number of characters, and Hollywood's need for personal drama lines makes it too coarse.
Easy Company was, well, easy. Condense training to one episode, have 8 episodes of following one group through one year of war where they're all in the same locations together, and then a wrap-up episode. That's perfect from a cohesive miniseries point of view. Even more so because it came from one source book.
MotA and Pacific combine multiple source materials, multiple timelines, and multiple places. It's just too much to ask for 9-10 episodes, especially when budget is brought in to the picture.
I'm still really liking it, though. You just have to take it for what it is.
I agree, this was the major issue with both MoA and The Pacific. They are both good story telling, the story is just too big for the amount of time available.
MoA was good, but it wasn't great in my opinion.
Posted on 3/11/24 at 3:14 pm to tide06
I forget how many military experts we have here.
No one envisioned a war where Germany had taken all of mainland Europe. Yes, they thought the bombers could protect themselves at the start of the war. But in the case of war, sometimes technology and tactics don't match at first. What they needed to do was reduce German air power so they could invade Europe. As escorts were lacking, were they supposed to just all sit in England and wait two more years for escort technology to improve. They had what they had and decided to proceed. They sent the bombers up knowing they were trading men and aircraft against German pilots and aircraft, with the added benefit that bombing was reducing German ability to wage war and lower German moral. That was the quickest way to win the war.
The UK had less than 50million people. Meanwhile, Germany (including Austria, Memelland and Sudetenland) had a population of over 80million. Yes, the British Empire had more but it would have taken a lot of effort to move enough military age men to Europe to make much of a difference. In addition, they didn't have the industrial capacity to launch an invasion while protecting it from the Luftwaffe. Plus, Germany had the resources of all of Europe at its disposal. Oh yeah, and they were fighting Japan too.
quote:
Unfortunately the planners still refused to acknowledge the reality of the situation through 1944 and happily traded air crews for strikes on targets that often had little if any tangible military impact right up until the P51D minimized the consequences of their blundering.
No one envisioned a war where Germany had taken all of mainland Europe. Yes, they thought the bombers could protect themselves at the start of the war. But in the case of war, sometimes technology and tactics don't match at first. What they needed to do was reduce German air power so they could invade Europe. As escorts were lacking, were they supposed to just all sit in England and wait two more years for escort technology to improve. They had what they had and decided to proceed. They sent the bombers up knowing they were trading men and aircraft against German pilots and aircraft, with the added benefit that bombing was reducing German ability to wage war and lower German moral. That was the quickest way to win the war.
quote:
how pitiful was the British military that they couldn't have driven Germany out of France? on top of that the US was fighting on the Japan front as well
The UK had less than 50million people. Meanwhile, Germany (including Austria, Memelland and Sudetenland) had a population of over 80million. Yes, the British Empire had more but it would have taken a lot of effort to move enough military age men to Europe to make much of a difference. In addition, they didn't have the industrial capacity to launch an invasion while protecting it from the Luftwaffe. Plus, Germany had the resources of all of Europe at its disposal. Oh yeah, and they were fighting Japan too.
Posted on 3/11/24 at 6:22 pm to Junky
quote:
It is so funny we talk about this when the P-47 was just as capable of long range duty. Had army provided the drop tanks that were needed to make the 2nd Schweinfurt Raid in Oct. '43, the P-47 had the ability to make the trip with the bombers and back.
I did not know that, +1.
Posted on 3/11/24 at 6:39 pm to TigerDeacon
quote:
As escorts were lacking, were they supposed to just all sit in England and wait two more years for escort technology to improve.
They spent the first year bouncing 500lb bombs off 30’ of concrete on the submarine pens.
Those missions and the crews who died making those runs could’ve been much better spent on many other missions or yes, saved until they had sufficient numbers to inflict meaningful damage on targets of substance rather than as sacrificial lambs to justify the daylight bombing campaign.
If you read the book they outline the real motivation for why they were used how they were and much of it has to do with bomber command attempting to save face for their prewar tactical assumptions.
quote:
They sent the bombers up knowing they were trading men and aircraft against German pilots and aircraft,
Which made sense later in the war when they had fighter escorts capable of inflicting positive loss rates against the Luftwaffe. Before the escorts got involved that was emphatically not the case. So why would you want to send bombers up against fighters with a negative loss rate? That’s a poor use of a limited resource and demonstrates poor generalship by incurring unnecessary casualties.
quote:
the added benefit that bombing was reducing German ability to wage war and lower German moral. That was the quickest way to win the war.
Post war analysis doesn’t support the conclusion that German morale was significantly impacted until very late with the mass casualty civilian target raids and more so it states unequivocally that because the German people had no ability to resist Nazi leadership that morale had no tangible correlation to decreases in German war production.
US bomber command was wrong about almost all of their prewar assumptions and tactics and it wasn’t until they had overwhelming numerical superiority and rushed development of fighters capable of escorting the bombers to their targets (which bomber command insisted weren't necessary as late as 1943) that they were able to grind the Luftwaffe into dust.
This post was edited on 3/11/24 at 8:15 pm
Posted on 3/12/24 at 3:51 am to fightingtigers98
quote:
Shame she is a spy.
When does it say Crosbys girl is a spy? Confused.
Posted on 3/12/24 at 5:42 am to BottomlandBrew
quote:
This series has the same fault that The Pacific did in that there is just too much to show for a 9-10 episode series. The timeline is too long, the characters too geographically spread out, attrition adding to the number of characters, and Hollywood's need for personal drama lines makes it too coarse.
Totally agree. Can’t believe there’s only one episode left. How the fvck are they gonna wrap up the million storylines ongoing?
Good show, but the pacing and plot are so all over the place.
Posted on 3/12/24 at 8:35 am to tigerfan24736
quote:
When does it say Crosbys girl is a spy? Confused.
Prior to episode 8, it seemed pretty obvious given how she was constantly appearing and disappearing.
Did you watch episode 8? it pretty much confirmed it by slapping you over the head with it.
Posted on 3/12/24 at 10:34 am to VinegarStrokes
Nah didn’t watch 8 yet
Posted on 3/12/24 at 10:53 am to tigerfan24736
quote:
Nah didn’t watch 8 yet
ah ok, then yeah...your question is pretty much answered in that one. Her other appearances alluded to her being a spy but didn't really come right out with it.
Posted on 3/12/24 at 1:12 pm to VinegarStrokes
Stupid question: was the AF back then that lax with the military haircut or is that just Hollywood? I googled but the pictures I saw they all had pilot helmets on.
Posted on 3/12/24 at 1:27 pm to VinegarStrokes
Oh but she’s a spy for Allie’s not Nazis that’s good at least lol
Posted on 3/12/24 at 4:02 pm to The Ramp
quote:
Stupid question: was the AF back then that lax with the military haircut or is that just Hollywood? I googled but the pictures I saw they all had pilot helmets on.
I always thought that the super strict high and tight or buzzcut was only during bootcamp and that once you’re on a deployment somewhere things get much more casual, but Idk
Posted on 3/12/24 at 5:19 pm to tigerfan24736
I don’t think she is a spy, just an intelligence officer so to speak
Posted on 3/14/24 at 10:05 pm to lsupride87
Really good last episode and great show overall for me. No it’s not Band of Brothers or Pacific but it’s a great companion piece. The aerial combat, sheer numbers we put in the air, and effects flak and German fighters had on those men was really well done.
American air power was a huge reason we won the war. What those men that went down went through can’t be saluted enough. Brave men.
My dad’s friend went through a march with Stalag Luft IV like they did in the show although it was more brutal in reality.
My main gripe to close out, was Crosby’s affair never being acknowledged. I’m pretty sure it was fictitious and manufactured for the show. But he went home to a wife and son and his affair was never acknowledged at all. Really rubbed me the wrong way, especially if created for the show that they did him that way.
American air power was a huge reason we won the war. What those men that went down went through can’t be saluted enough. Brave men.
My dad’s friend went through a march with Stalag Luft IV like they did in the show although it was more brutal in reality.
My main gripe to close out, was Crosby’s affair never being acknowledged. I’m pretty sure it was fictitious and manufactured for the show. But he went home to a wife and son and his affair was never acknowledged at all. Really rubbed me the wrong way, especially if created for the show that they did him that way.
Posted on 3/15/24 at 8:05 am to tide06
quote:
So why would you want to send bombers up against fighters with a negative loss rate? That’s a poor use of a limited resource and demonstrates poor generalship by incurring unnecessary casualties.
Because they had to do something. They couldn't just sit in England. There was pressure to take the war to Germany. Every day they waited was another day for Germany to entrench themselves and exploit the resources of the continent.
Posted on 3/15/24 at 8:08 am to The Ramp
quote:
Stupid question: was the AF back then that lax with the military haircut or is that just Hollywood?
I think they didn't care to how their hair looked when they knew a large portion of them wouldn't make it back from each mission.
Also, remember that the US military was ramping up from a small professional force. Most of the officers were civilians just a couple of years before.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News