Garbage ,as usual.


Where do I start?Roy brown didn't shoot down Richthofen.Richthofen and Goring never flew together.Goring never shot any nurses, etc.,etc.,etc.................I could go on,but that would take all day.

reply

Damn straight! An Aussie shot him down.

[23.57 - fri, sydney]
Troy
"Watch out, it's the Netstapo!"

reply

from what i understand, no pilot shot him down. more than likely he was killed with a lucky AA shot or a rifleman shot.

reply

Some forensic historians proved he was shot from the ground by an Australian machine gunner. I can give you the titles of a couple of good books on the subject, and it was also featured on a History Channel doco, and they are said he was still alive when he landed. He knew he was badly hurt, probably dying, but he still managed to land his triplane. They found a letter from one of the Aussies who was first to get to the plane, and he said he heard him sigh, then died. He was killed by a single bullet. (ps - i've been away for over three months, would have replied a lot sooner!)

Troy
Boy! I say boy! Are you listening to me boy?

reply

Yes but Roy Brown was credited with the kill at the time and he is the one who viciously dog fighted with him and who herded him into the allied lines. Brown remains the pilot who officially shot down Richtofen. Go Canada.

reply

Brown didn't herd von Richthofen into Allied lines, he was persuing another plane, contrary to all his own rules of combat. He stressed over and over to his newer pilots NOT to fly low over enemy lines, and NOT to persue Allied planes over enemy lines for long periods, yet on his final flight he did just that. You mis-spelt von Richthofen and Canada mate!

Troy
11.51 - tue, sydney
Achtung meine Panzertruppen, Nächster Halt - Moskau!

reply

Hey didn't they say that the Red Baron has some minor brain damage due to an earlier crash and he lost his sense of direction and it was a factor to why he strayed into the allied lines?

reply

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner mate, I've been really busy getting my own military histroy site up and running, please feel free to check it out, I'm sure you'll find something to your liking, or I hope you do anyway! It's only been going for about four days, and I only have about 35 members, but check it out!

http://www.freepowerboards.com/feldpost/

Troy
18.55 - wed, sydney
Achtung meine Panzertruppen, Nächster Halt - Moskau!

reply

Despite its inaccuracies, I think it presented itself as a relatively well-done film with thrilling dogfights. Though, I did feel it was often a little too hard to distinguish between the faces of the pilots while flying. My turn: Go U.S.!

reply

It's not a documentary, it's a movie. The reason they showed Goring was because he provides such a contrast to Von Richtofen. The central purpose of this movie is not to depict the events of that time in a historically accurate way. The purpose in my opinion is to talk about the end of a "gentleman's" way of fighting war. Brown and Goring represent different aspects of the changes that WWI brought to warfare. That's what the movie is about. Just stick to books or documentaries if all you're interested in is a literal depiction of historical fact, some people are trying to watch movies over here.

Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'

reply

I agree with above. This is not a history channel documentary, it's entertainment inspired by real events.
The film-makers worked hard and the dogfights are real, and that's as much as anyone can expect from an air war epic.
By comparison look at the more recent, Der Rote Baron. In many aspects it was a more accurate depiction of the Baron's life, but there were also just as many inaccuracies, and worst of all, there was not a single real aircraft used in the digital flying scenes.
It did not deliver the goods.
Roger Corman's film did.

reply

Thanks... I also agree that one advantage of this film over more recent ones is that the planes are real and not digital. I just have never seen CGI footage of airplanes that made it look like they were really flying; it all moves too smooth.

Generally, history buffs are detail-oriented people and I think many on this thread and others have sort of missed the forest for the trees when it comes to "history" and how it relates to the narrative of this movie.

Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'

reply

"It's not a documentary, it's a movie."

Then DON'T call it Richtofen and Brown. If you don't believe so then stick to watching cartoons.




"The King wore enough clothes for both of us." Mohandes Ghandi

reply

One glaring inaccuracy that bugged me was the fact that early biplane fighters on the front lines had no throttle. They were wide open or off. The had to blip the engine by turning off and on to slow down to land and to taxi. Great flying scenes though.




Guns kill people, just like Spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat.

reply

"It's not a documentary, it's a movie."

"Then DON'T call it Richtofen and Brown."

Why not? Did you think Midnight Express was factual? Or JFK? Or W? Did you expect them to be? It's not history class, it's historical fiction - you know, entertainment.

reply

Roy brown didn't shoot down Richthofen


The film was made in 1971 at a time when - despite Brown himself casting doubt over whether he was responsible in his own report that day and not claiming the kill even though his superiors officially cedited him with it - most people believed he had shot him down. It's only compartively recently that there's been a huge weight of evidence disclosed, so it was an understandable assumption for the film to make at the time. But while it's completely inaccurate in other ways, it's a decent bit of allegorical mythmaking that attempted to put a 70s spin on printing the legend rather than unearthing the truth.


"Security - release the badgers."

reply