Midway Movie, what did you all think?

[MarkVIIIMarc]

I'll admit the previews had me worried it was going to be Pearl Harbor II.

w/o spoilers,

I thought there were a couple moments almost equal to Princess Leia floating in space and some of the dialog was definitely uninspired but I found it quite enjoyable. I'm happy I saw it at the theater.

[Khedrac]

I thought a good movie, and it briefly covers the events that led to the battle (from before Pearl Habour) - this is useful because it puts it into context.

That said, because it is primarily a viewpoint movie, it only covers the events fairly sketchily and so if you want a detailed account of the battle, it's the wrong film.

I think I only saw one point where I believe the film-makers got carried away (it's in the trailers so not a spoiler) - a dive bomber is shown pulling up after its run with it's wingtip catching the water for a nice visual effect - I would expect that to be an instant crash in real life.

So, whilst I recommend finding a good book on the battle to find out what happened (there are some amusing happenings that don't make the film) I also recommend the film as an enjoyable watch and to put the book into context.

[HandofShadows]

At Midway the Dauntless pilots waited until the very last second to release their bombs because they wanted to be dead sure they hit. I don't recall a report of a plane actually clipping a wave, but those planes were just about close enough to do it.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

At Midway the Dauntless pilots waited until the very last second to release their bombs because they wanted to be dead sure they hit. I don't recall a report of a plane actually clipping a wave, but those planes were just about close enough to do it.

The movie got me thinking about the European dive bombers going after tanks.

[HandofShadows]

The movie got me thinking about the European dive bombers going after tanks.

Tanks were a lot smaller target and much more agile. From what I have heard air attacks against tanks were not all that great unless you had a plane carrying a gun that could go through the armor and not all that common even then. What the air attacks did do was lower moral and destroy the lighter vehicles that carries support troops, the supplies and spare parts needed to keep the tanks going. So the air attacks did work, just indirectly.

[Khedrac]

What about Midway? Is it like Replica of Pearl Harbor? Without spoilers plz.

Do you mean the film or the battle?

The film is a good brief overview of the events that led up to the battle (starting before Pearl Harbour) coupled with a good coverage of the key parts of the battle, primarily from viewpoints of a few of the Americans and Japanese involved. Overall it is an excellent film.
(I haven't seen the film of Pearl Harbour.)

The battle was the Japanese attempt to draw out the US pacific carriers to where they could be destroyed giving the Japanese unchallenged mastery of the pacific. (The big mistake at Pearl Harbour was that the carriers were out on exercise when the attack happened so escaped unscathed.) It was the first true carrier v. carrier battle and determined a lot about the course the war was to follow subsequently.

[snowblizz]

Tanks were a lot smaller target and much more agile. From what I have heard air attacks against tanks were not all that great unless you had a plane carrying a gun that could go through the armor and not all that common even then. What the air attacks did do was lower moral and destroy the lighter vehicles that carries support troops, the supplies and spare parts needed to keep the tanks going. So the air attacks did work, just indirectly.

Well the early Blitzkrieg Stukas did way more than just "indirectly" attack, they were very specifically "flying artillery". And not very adaptable to the deeper rear area attacks.

The thing with bombing tanks is that you catch them unawares. You don't really need to hit them exactly either, just winging a tank with a bomb that won't dent a battleship is enough to toss it like a leaf (early stage tanks were incredibly light compared to alte war heavy tanks) or damage drivng mechanism and so on. If you really did hit bang on the top armour is thin enough there won't be a lot left of the tank. Even the King Tigers feared airpower, and even by then few specialised antitank aircraft were made. Groundattack planes were a bit more generalist, but with rockets they deliver a hard punch to the weakest part of tanks from a direction tanks had difficulty defending.

Keep in mind the reason airattacks lowered tankers morale was precisely because they were vulnerable. And they were very vulnerable as is evident form how the WW2 Germans in the late stages basically couldn't move tanks or men in daylight.

[HandofShadows]

Well the early Blitzkrieg Stukas did way more than just "indirectly" attack, they were very specifically "flying artillery". And not very adaptable to the deeper rear area attacks.

Let's take a look at some actual figures shall we? Myths of American Armor. TankFest Northwest 2015 "Flying arty" is only good at stationary targets. The Stuka only became an effective tank killer after they mounted a pair of 37mm cannon on it. (The G versions.)

It was the first true carrier v. carrier battle and determined a lot about the course the war was to follow subsequently.

First true carrier vs carrier battle was the Battle of the Coral Sea, not Midway.

[Mordar]

Overall I thought it was fine - some of the acting was a little wooden and they dialed up the cowboy-vs-by the book thing far higher than it needed to go.

Some of the effects seemed a little strange...like the smoke plumes.

Wife liked it better than I did, and I thought it was worth the price of admission and time spent.

I still put the 1976 version well ahead, though.

- M

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by HandofShadows
From what I have heard air attacks against tanks were not all that great unless you had a plane carrying a gun that could go through the armor and not all that common even then.

The Il-2 Sturmovik was a dedicated tank-killer, and it did the job very well. Sturmoviks were turned out in great numbers and took a substantial toll on German armor.

The P-39 Airacobra also had some success in the ground-attack role, although it was a smaller, lighter aircraft and didn’t have the raw punch of the later Sturmoviks. But any aircraft mounting a 37mm cannon will cause some serious hurt to most armored vehicles.

[Khedrac]

First true carrier vs carrier battle was the Battle of the Coral Sea, not Midway.

Good point (and the battle is covered in the film) - make that the first decisive carrier v carrier battle - I was incorrectly thinking that the battle of the Coral Sea was less of an actual battle than it was.

[Tvtyrant]

It is good spectacle, the characters are completely forgettable in their delivery.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

What about Midway? Is it like Replica of Pearl Harbor? Without spoilers plz.

I found the Midway movie to be superior to Pearl Harbor but neither the special effects nor the dialog were equal to Tora Tora Tora. That leaves too big of a place in between....after one watch I feel Midway was a very good movie. Not Tora Tora Tora great but still very good.

[Cikomyr]

It is good spectacle, the characters are completely forgettable in their delivery.

I dunno. I really liked Aaron Eckhart 's character.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I thought it was pretty good. Way better than Pearl Harbour, though that's one of the worst films I've ever seen, so not exactly hard to beat.

My main complaint is that it tried to cover too much ground in too short a time, so everything ended up being rushed. On several occasions, half a line of dialogue or a two-second shot were used to summarise an event that could easily have been made into a film in its own right.

I also thought it was quite uncharitable towards admiral Nagumo, failing to properly explain the various pressures he was under and painting him as a tyrannical loose cannon. I suppose the filmmakers wanted a villain, but it felt pretty harsh to watch.

[MikelaC1]

The big mistake at Pearl Harbour was that the carriers were out on exercise when the attack happened so escaped unscathed.

Not really a mistake on the part of the Japanese, they just didnt know the carriers were going to be out on an exercise. And the reason they were out was because the US command knew the Japanese were going to be coming after them at some point and put the carriers out so that they wouldnt get hit.

I still put the 1976 version well ahead, though.

Ditto, you want to see a true historic account of the battle, watch that film. I havent actually seen the current one, and dont intend to, since the first was so accurate to the events.