I know its an Asylum movie, yet please answer 5 points for me. - Flight World War II (2015) Discussion

[–] SpiltPersonality 9 years ago

Hell, it was a Me262 identified by WWII experts as a Ju88, in 1940!

You really want an answer?

Sorry, I can't give you one.

reply

[–] punchyourface 9 years ago

They were referring to the bombers. Those were Junkers. But as for the 262s... they didn't even fly with jet engines until 1942...

reply

[–] OccamsBarber 8 years ago

The historians did mention that. It was one of the first clues that things were different.

I'm like a rabbit suddenly trapped
In the blinding headlights of vacuous crap.

reply

[–] dwennekamp 9 years ago

Me 262 max speed 559 mph
Boeing 757 cruising speed 567mph

Me 262 ceiling 11,000 ft
Boeing 757 ceiling 42,000 ft

Me 262 max thrust 3,970 lbf
Boeing 757 max thrust 43,500 lbf

Me 262 were notoriously sluggish on acceleration, too much and they would flame out.

Breathing at 10,00 feet is not a problem, holding on in the slipstream of 500 mph could be very difficult.

reply

[–] craig.duncan 9 years ago

An error in units here:

Me 262 ceiling 11,000 ft

Should read 11,450 m (37,565 ft)

So a 757 could escape a ME 262 by climbing higher than it, but could only barely outrun it. A loaded 757 has a peak rate of climb of about 4,500 ft/min, a ME 262 3,900.

So the scenario of a ME 262 shooting down a 757 is, I think, one of the few realistic parts of Flight WW II's story – the two aircraft have surprising similar performances. The actual scenes are sillily unrealistic, mainly because the ME 262s were shown shooting so much, and doing so little damage.

The ME 262 carried 80 rounds for each of its upper 2 30 mm cannons, 100 for each of its lower 2, for a maximum firing time of 7.4 and 9.2 seconds respectively. The explosive shells of these cannon were very destructive, a few hits sufficient to blow apart a B-29 WW II heavy bomber. They also carried 24 unguided rockets each with a 520 g explosive warhead. A single hit from one of these was usually sufficient to shoot down a bomber.

If an ME 262 could successfully intercept a 757, it could almost certainly shoot it down.

reply

[–] paaskynen 9 years ago

It is also amazing how turning on the landing lights makes the plane immediately visible to the enemy, but all those windows to the brightly lit cabin have no effect on visibility at all.

reply

[–] randy-stevens 9 years ago

And the air masks never drop...

reply

[–] nogard64 9 years ago

yeah everyone who has study history or just watched the History channel saw how late the Messerschmitt entered WW II, it seems obvious Hitler miscalculated and entered the war too early, if he would have waited and started his invasion 1944 or 1945 he would have had full squadrons of those in the air, plus V2 rockets, plus maybe even the Atomic bomb, things would have probably turned out really different.

-things I write on IMDB may come from my blog

reply

[–] ficoce 9 years ago

The Treaty of Versailles put a lot of restrictions on Germany and made life pretty tough for the German citizens. It was popular in Britten and other parts of Europe to feel sorry for the Germans and want to modify the years old treaty. Hitler was ignoring the treaty and building up his military, which he could do in country, but the fuel to run all that machinery was in the middle east and a major transport of oil by extending the Orient Express couldn't be hidden. He used his popularity with England to try and finish up the oil supply line as quick as he could before they caught on. It almost worked. He was able to build quite a few bunkers along the west coast of Europe before England caught on and it might have worked if he wouldn't have had his hands full with Russia.

Hitler had a lot of plans, but it was hard to complete anything when hit from all sides and low on supplies.

The west has been fighting over the area around Baghdad since WWI, with either active or cold war - still going on today a hundred years later.

reply

[–] nogard64 9 years ago

its just crazy to think the British and the USA didn't have a working jet fighter til around the mid 50's AND THEY WERE COPING AND REVERSE ENGINEERING THE NAZIS! just AMAZING Nazis were so ahead.

And I think the ultimate Irony HITLER was searching for that "Wunderwaffe" the ULTIMATE unstoppable weapon, and that weapon slipped right out of his hands and it was called the Atomic Bomb.

I love studying history, so many interesting little twists and nuances that could have changed history one way or another.

-things I write on IMDB may come from my blog

reply

[–] ficoce 9 years ago

We had/have bureaucrats running things, paid for by congress. Hitler had generals running things paid for by bureaucrats overseen by Hitler. Germany was able to get things done quick with this system. The German people had been oppressed for years because of the treaty, when Hitler came in all ready to get the job done - the people were probably pretty happy to have someone with vision and a gung ho attitude.

The US and the USSR had about the same population before the war. We lost about 400,000, they lost millions, (10,000,000 conservative, 20,000,000 if civilian/prison pop is counted). yet they were able to get their space program up and running first. The US focused on infrastructure. We were a few steps ahead on nuclear, but just a few.

History, economics, and philosophy are three things the US doesn't want the general population to dwell on much anymore. Many of the great minds behind WWII entered college having done most of their work on a 12"x12" black slate and chalk - we put a man on the moon using slide rules good to three decimal places. Now we have super computers and have a heck of a time getting anything done.

reply

[–] drpangloss48 9 years ago

The US and Britain (and France, and Russia) all had operational jet aircraft before 1950.

German ME-262 Operational 1944
British Gloster Meteor- 1945
US P-80, and P-59, 1945.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mobocracy 9 years ago

No amount of technology short of a working atomic bomb would have helped the Germans.

Resources beat Germany, not technology. The US natural resources and industrial capacity was enough that we could afford to lose 3 for every 1 it cost the Germans. We could replace those 3 with 4 more when the Germans could barely manage to replace 1.

Without the raw materials and industrial capacity, Germany was doomed.

The US had so many airplanes in the South Pacific at the end of WWII (and that lacked the range to fly to the US) they literally plowed them off cliffs into the sea rather than ship them home. Airplanes. Flying machines. One of the most sophisticated industrial products in human history up to that point (or any point after) and they just bulldozed them into the ocean like so much garbage.

reply

[–] mpboylanjr-54038 9 years ago

Many good points on this thread and as a big history buff myself (especially WWI and WWII as well as the Korean War and the crusades ) I'm impressed with the knowledge that most of you guys have.
I feel that Hitler was doomed for many reasons given plus his greedy nature in thinking he could take on military's on all fronts. Sure he was a hit politically because at the time the country was on the verge of total starvation and the economy was non existent. He ultimately preyed on this and also giving people false hope and constantly lying to them.
Also it is true that many geniuses and great scientific minds were taken or mostly fled Germany because what he was doing and the genocide and war crimes he was committing . We got these men who invented and launched the first rockets as well as helped us build the first two nuclear weapons.
It is amazing that if certain things or slight calculations or miscalculations in time could have changed the way we live today all over the world . It is very interesting to me as well just to think of "what if" scenarios and particular actions that ultimately played out that changed major historical points in time. That is another thing that makes history (especially war ) so cool and fascinating IMO !!!

THERES NO ROOM IN MY CIRCUS TENT FOR YOU !!!!

reply

[–] mwddurkin-623-687189 9 years ago

Wow, im really late to the party. I saw a great documentary once called "How Hitler Lost the War". Essentially going over mistake after mistake he made and even then, up to The bulge he may have pulled something out.Really they defeated themselves. Also one thing I think most people are not aware of or just cant believe or accept is the prominence of the holocaust. Hitlers main goal was eliminating the Jews....period. The war was only waged to cover up the murder of people as this would be next to impossible during peacetime. He did not try to hide his views and was very clear in Mein Kampf and later speeches. He was going to remove the Jews from existence in Europe. Time again troops, supplies, fuel was diverted from war operations to kill Jews. Life or death decisions to empty trains filled with food,fuel and ammunition for troops so they could use them to transport Jews to the camps. Come hell or high water, if a few divisions of soldiers were wiped out so a town full of Jews in Poland could be transported to the camps.....so be it. Why make such insane calls that no general would make that would clearly undermine your whole war effort???? Because the whole point of the war was to destroy the Jews that's why. Why leave a whole army to rot in Stalingrad? Screw em, if they aren't victorious let them starve or be captured....The death trains are still rolling right???? Yes mein Fuhrer!!!! Good, everythings ok then. But the allies are going to invade in France, we need to build up the Atlantic wall, we need to send supplies and fuel for tanks. Will that affect my death trains??? Yes mein Fuhrer. Well then forget it, they'll have to make due, I want all fuel and trains used for my death trains!!!!!

reply

[–] taticat 9 years ago

This has been a really interesting thread to read. Thanks. It's 'make do', btw.

reply

[–] shanekolacz 9 years ago

Hmmm! I think there is a little more to WW2 than Hitler just wanting to kill the Jews. Ita all really starts with the treaty of Versailles which exacted such punitive measures on Germany that an entire country was thrown into depression. The treatment of minorities (including Jews) began as a means of unifying the German people against a common foe. Hitler was never popularly voted into power - he manipulated a system which enabled him to wrest control from the existing government. The 'final solution' was actually the brainchild of Himmler and enacted primarily through the SS.Indeed, if Hitler had a main goal it was to unify Europe under German rule and destroy communism through conquering Russia. He intended the Ukraine to become the breadbasket of the new Europe. Part of that process was the removal of 'undesirables' such as Jews, Gypsies, etc. Toward the end of the war he even started moving against catholicism. Initially, he tried to relocate said undesirables to places such as Madagascar but was stymied by Britain. You may have heard of a cruise liner full of Jewish German citizens that sailed the world in search of a safe harbour early in or just before the war that in the end was forced back to Germany because no other country would take them in. I think one needs to look into this a little deeper than just watching a special or two on the Documentary Channel.

reply

[–] mwddurkin-623-687189 9 years ago

I think to assume ones whole views on the Second World War are gleaned from a documentary or two is laughable. One needs to maybe have a conversation or two with someone to know what they think about a subject as complex as WW2, instead of basing a opinion on a post on IMDB. Just to touch on a few points, "It all really starts with the treaty of Versailles" According to Hitler, not me, the treaty and the war that preceded it were functions of the Jewish banking elite. The treaty was only enforced by the allies who were controlled by Jewish bankers. "Hitler was never popularly voted into power" I'm going to assume you know what your talking about and that you just assume you can throw out vagaries because your used to talking to morons. No one was popularly elected at that time. That's not how their German system worked, however the national socialists, of which Hitler was chairman, won 288 seats in parliament in the election. Three times as many as their next closest opponents!!!!! So if that want enough for him to be running the country he was then democratically appointed chancellor by Hindenburg. That isn't some violent coup where he stole away the country from someone the people didn't want. They held parades, people were behind him 110%. Hitlers main goal was to unify Europe and destroy communism. Who were communists.......in Hitlers mind? Again, I point to statements made by Hitler, "If the INTERNATIONAL JEWISH FINANCIERS in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the bolshevisation of the earth and thus the victory of world Jewry but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe" Hitler, speaking to Mufti Amin Husseini, a Arab nationalist in Palestine said, Germany will carry on the fight until the last traces of the JEWISH COMMUNIST EUROPEAN hegemony have been obliterated. Once victory was assured in Russia, Germany's only remaining objective would be limited to the annihilation of the Jews living under British protection in Arab lands. Germany is today the next Great War of Bolshevism. It requires all the force of a young missionary idea to raise our people up again, to free them from the snares of this international serpent. Did Hitler want to unify Europe under German rule? Of course but that could only be done once all the Jews were eliminated. And if the allies tried to interfere it was only because the western democracies were controlled by international Jewish financiers....Hitlers views, not mine.

reply

[–] shanekolacz 9 years ago

Ok. I don't want to get into a long historical treatise on the motivations of Hitler in commencing hostilities in 1939,suffice to say that the point I am trying to make is that Hitler didn't mobilise the entire German nation just to destroy Jews. To suggest that demeans the sacrifices and misery inflicted on millions more (non Jewish) French, Poles, Scandinavians, Ukrainians and even Germans. What do you say to them - they just got in the way? You have obviously read some texts that extoll certain theories. I suggest you read some more that perhaps give a broader perspective. Try Martin Gilbert or Antony Beevor. If you want to really broaden your horizons then try David Irving. I know he has been discredited, but this was because of some of the conclusions he draws, his research is still academic. Regarding your comment that the German people were behind Hitler 110% you might try reading 'A Higher Call' by Adam Makos - it gives the most balanced account of what life was like in Germany at that time and what fear the general populace lived under - Jewish and gentile alike.

reply

[–] shanekolacz 9 years ago

Ok. I don't want to get into a long historical treatise on the motivations of Hitler in commencing hostilities in 1939,suffice to say that the point I am trying to make is that Hitler didn't mobilise the entire German nation just to destroy Jews. To suggest that demeans the sacrifices and misery inflicted on millions more (non Jewish) French, Poles, Scandinavians, Ukrainians and even Germans. What do you say to them - they just got in the way? You have obviously read some texts that extoll certain theories. I suggest you read some more that perhaps give a broader perspective. Try Martin Gilbert or Antony Beevor. If you want to really broaden your horizons then try David Irving. I know he has been discredited, but this was because of some of the conclusions he draws, his research is still academic. Regarding your comment that the German people were behind Hitler 110% you might try reading 'A Higher Call' by Adam Makos - it gives the most balanced account of what life was like in Germany at that time and what fear the general populace lived under - Jewish and gentile alike.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] philoj 9 years ago

>-They want to change the alternate (normal timeline to what they say is the "normal" timeline? (Pretty selfish of them).

This is an ethical question which is almost never addressed in time travel movies, but is a central plot point in Stargate: Millennium - "What right do you have to change the lives of everyone else on Earth?"

reply

[–] Clarence-worley 8 years ago

Who would have thought a crappy asylum film would create such an interesting historical debate

reply