Depending on the variant, the Me-109 may also have either a third MG 151/20 or a 30mm MK 108 Motorkanone firing through the propeller hub. There's no way to tell with what we have right now, however. The Me-262 on the poster would also have four MK 108s in the nose. --Funkychinaman 09:43, 6 January 2012 (CST)
I think these have 12 guns rather than 13 as other shots from the trailer show there is no radio room gun. Also, does anyone know if it is the case that as these B-17s have staggered and enclosed waist possitions that means they should have the "Cheyenne" tail gun rather than the original "Stinger" tail that is on these planes? --commando552 19:24, 6 January 2012 (CST)
I thought the Cheyanne tail and the staggered waist guns were standard on all G's. --Funkychinaman 19:28, 6 January 2012 (CST)
I believe the new tail gun and the staggered waist positions were only introduced on G's made after April 1944. Either way, as the planes in this seem to have staggered waist guns (there is an interior shot of a burning B-17 in the trailer where you can see this) I'm fairly sure the tail position is worng. --commando552 20:12, 6 January 2012 (CST)
Did I spy Han Solo's pistol?
I just saw the movie, and there is a point where there is a soldier, I already can't remember, and he shows of his pistol...something something devastator, or what have you. Before he said that, I thought it was a C96, but on a closer shot, it was done up with a lot of stuff, like Han Solo's C96, has anyone else seen this?
No, that was probly "Ray Gun"'s Buck Rodgers X-38 blaster pistol.
I saw an M1919 when the troops land. --Mandolin 19:30, 29 January 2012 (CST)
Amusing Media Billing
I think it's funny how the media seem to be describing this as the first movie depicting this unit, apparently having completely forgotten about The Tuskegee Airmen, which starred at least one of the actors who's in this film. Orca1 9904 20:48, 29 January 2012 (CST)
Well, the 1995 film was HBO, IIRC, so this is the first Hollywood version.--Mandolin 22:35, 29 January 2012 (CST)
These look like fake guns assembled on real carriages and stripped-down pivots; you can see one's rusty as hell and the other has a ton of lubricant on it, which I wouldn't think you'd get if you'd just made the things for the production. Evil Tim (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2013 (EST)
Whew, because I've been driving myself crazy trying to find this thing. --Funkychinaman (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2013 (EST)
Looking at the one in the foreground in pic 2, it looks like it's partially real, probably some old broken 3.7cm FlaK 43. From the lugs and such on the bottom it looks like it's not all there, and it should be mounted on the left of the two loops rather than in the middle. Barrels look fake, and I think they're on carriages designed for 40mm Bofors guns. Evil Tim (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2013 (EST)
Unknown AA gun 2
The German cruiser, which is referred to a destroyer in the film, defends itself with unknown AA guns. Maybe a 3.7 cm SK C/30?
In trying to ID the first AA gun, I think I found the second. PLDvK vzor 53? --Funkychinaman (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2013 (EST)
The cruiser is 100% fake. It doesn't match anything in my Jane's Fighting Ships of WW2, and doesn't even look close to anything. German cruisers generally had a one turret forward and two aft, rather that the usual two forward and one aft. Heavy cruisers generally had 8-9 8" guns in either four twin or three triple turrets. Lights had 5.9" (German) or 6" (everyone else) in between three and 5 turrets. Also, the secondary armament is too light as well. Generally, cruisers carried 8-12 guns between 3 and 5 inches bore, and usually twin mounts. This ship has six single mounts, and they seem small-caliber. Also, the unknown twin AA guns are not the 37mm SK C/30, the layout is wrong and the barrels are longer. Finally, the C/30 was highly inferior to the Bofors L/60 40mm, as the C/30 was a manually loaded weapon, and was out of service by the movie's 1944 time frame. The autoloading clip-fed Flack 43 replaced it. The MG34 mounts would not have been found on a ship, IMO. The USN decided the M2 .50cal was useless as an AA gun in the early 1940s, and an MG34 would contribute nothing to defense. It had rate of fire, but lacked the power and explosive/incendiary rounds of the M2 and 20mm Oerlikon. It would be possible to sink a destroyer with aircraft guns. It has thinner armor, and unlike larger ships torpedoes and depth charges are sitting on deck.--Mandolin (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2013 (EDT)
I can understand the slapped together nature of the practical set that they used, using land-based postwar Czech AA guns with existing MG34 mounts, but it bugs me the CGI model doesn't look like anything. I presume is IS some sort of existing light cruiser, I'm just not sure which. And what the hell is that open area in front of the third turret supposed to be? --Funkychinaman (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2013 (EDT)
It isn't based on ANY light cruiser design. Or anything else. The filmmakers dreamed it up out of nothing. I checked every nation in my copy of Jane's, nothing looks remotely close. I'm also wondering what the big open area is. It looks like there might be two small boats in it, but why? Any chance of getting a better view? I don't have it on DVD.--Mandolin (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2013 (EDT)
This is a Blu-Ray cap, and this is the only wide shot of the whole ship. I've since returned the disk, so I can't get any more caps. --Funkychinaman (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2013 (EDT)
Location is not produced!
These is still confusion in filming location with a share of the production! The film was shot at various locations in Croatia and the Czech Republic, but only and exclusively the produced of the American Film Companies 20 Centhury Fox and Lucasfilm!--Pandolfini (talk) 02:33, 29 May 2013 (EDT) - [[1]]
Does the "CZ" following Partnership Pictures stand for something else then? Maybe you can write them and ask. Or call them maybe? +420, that's the country code for the US, right? --Funkychinaman (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2013 (EDT)
You've obviously seen the IMDB link that lists a Czech production company along with Lucasfilm. If I was just going by filming location, I'd have included the UK and Croatia as well, but obviously, I didn't. --Funkychinaman (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2013 (EDT) Of course at a marginalities involved also other companies like Germans company Pixomodo or Czech Barrandov, but was charged as an external output. Country is ONLY - USA! [[2]] . If the film we produce, there is always some Czech filmmakers and actors. The company Partnership Pictures only provides rental equipment on set, it is not a film production.--Pandolfini (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2013 (EDT)
Žánr: akční / dobrodružný / drama / historický / válečný
Země:Spojené státy americké (engl.: Land - United States od America)
We go by what IMDb says. (Besides, CSFD and FDB can't even agree on what year the film was released.) Pixomodo is listed as a SFX company and Barrandov built the sets and supplied costumes. Partnership is listed as one of the production companies. If you look at the list of producers, you'll see that one of them is Ales Komárek, who happens to run Partnership Pictures, right next to George Lucas' name. --Funkychinaman (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2013 (EDT) O.K. Komarek, although I do not know, but when it is this meaning, it is necessary to supplement Czech manufacturing and production in dozens of other movies! This is unbalanced. Unknown B movie yes and no famous works? --Pandolfini (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2013 (EDT)
He just got a production credit right next to George Lucas, so he's moving up in the world. (A bunch ofother companies even list him as an executive producer.) If all these people did was supply lights, sew costumes and build sets, they'd be listed alongside all the other companies that supplied lights, sewed costumes and built sets. But they weren't, they were listed as a production company. If you take issue with that, take it up with IMDb, it's their listing. --Funkychinaman (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2013 (EDT) I owe an explanation: I have no problem with this. It is instead about the fact that on imdb is not mentioned in this film other countries, than the U.S. and yet you insists produced in the Czech Republic. For other, more famous titles, but is listed on IMDB Czech Republic, but on Imfdb to anyone missing, as here -[[6]] --Pandolfini (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2013 (EDT)
I'm just going by what's on the company credits page under production companies. --Funkychinaman (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2013 (EDT) I understand that, but then IMBD is not a credible source. This Aleš Komárek made also the film Hart's War [[7]]. But on IMDB it is not mentioned! There is only Barrandov as " location". But this is a movie studio! What then "location". So it is a Czech produced! IMDB is not a good source.--Pandolfini (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2013 (EDT)
Drama / Válečný
USA / Česko, 2002, 125 min (english: Country: USA / Czech Republic)
I'll admit his IMDB page a little confusing there. He's listed as "Executive in Charge of Production," but if you click on that term, it goes to "Executive Producer." --Funkychinaman (talk) 10:50, 29 May 2013 (EDT) Otherwise, with this flmem (Red Tails) it is all O.K.! I found a site that confirm the Czech produced of this movies: - [[9]]. Thus, additionally sorry.--Pandolfini (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2013 (EDT)
P. S.: But exist one problem! Movie Wanted - [[10]] - is here in a list of Czech produced movies. But in IMBD missed! - [[11]]--Pandolfini (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2013 (EDT)
I see Barrandov, but only as studio space. --Funkychinaman (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2013 (EDT)
That site you linked to for Wanted is just a filming studio. They were not a production company involved in making the film, they just rented out a sound stage to the production. --commando552 (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2013 (EDT) Aha, that's why. But how much more is involved these others? What is the difference when provide the necessary technical background (including lighting, editing studios, etc.) or when direct sewing costumes and creating backdrops?? This company differences not, and all of these titles has as "their", but in IMDB some missing.--Pandolfini (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2013 (EDT)
According to IMDB, a producer is "The chief of staff of a movie production in all matters save the creative efforts of the director, who is head of the line. A producer is responsible for raising funding, hiring key personnel, and arranging for distributors." So one is management and the other is not. --Funkychinaman (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2013 (EDT)
I think there may also be some confusion here as to use of the word "studio," which may mean a production company, like 20th Century Fox or Paramount, and a physical studio, like the aforementioned Prague Studios or Cinecitta in Rome.--Funkychinaman (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2013 (EDT) On IMDB they are all different messes! I just stumbled upon another. As country of origin is Canada, Australia and Great Britain. But manufacturing companies are just American and British. Only instead of shooting is also Canada and Australia are the only official website of the movie :)
During the squadron's first outing in their P-51s, one of them actually backflips his plane to get behind a pursuing Me 109. Is that even aerodynamically possible? Spartan198 (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2014 (EDT)
