Re: Interesting question

Posted by nitzsche from 1Cust158.tnt23.sfo3.da.uu.net on October 29, 1998 at 16:36:23:

In Reply to: Re: Interesting question posted by Michaelson on October 29, 1998 at 14:02:35:

: : : This was a fairly common thing in the 30's. The US had their own version with the biplane hung beneath too during that time period. Regards. Michaelson

: : Okay SMART-GUY, why did it have the machine gun turret attached?
: : chow,
: : Jeff

: Not sure what your SMART-GUY reference is to, but I'll be happy to reply to your question. Light armament was allowed on some small planes in Germany according to the Versalle (sp?) treaty at the end of WWI, though a standing air force was not. Since this was at the height of the Nazi political reign, 1938, why not the machine gun mounts? It was a Nazi marked zepplein and no one would have even questioned the existance of the mounted weapon. The US biplanes carried the same configuration with machine gun mounts as well, even though no one was at war at the time. This bi-plane/zeppelin arrangement was actually used in the Navy's first official South Pole exploration in support of Adm. Byrd in the early 30's, with the successful in air drop of the plane (as seen in Last Crusade) as well as the hair raising pick up in the air of the plane as well. You can actually see this in an OLD OLD movie seen sometimes on American Movie Classics called "Navy Airships", which shows the actual airship and biplanes practicing this manuver in California that went on that exhibition. They, too, sported mounted machine guns in turrets. Not sure who THEY expected to have to take on at the South Pole, but it was the military practice of the time period. Does that help? Regards. Michaelson

I really appreciate you taking the time to explain that. I often wondered as well...(about the drop from the blimp, and subsequent lift). Indy, having fought in WWI, obviously understood the basics of the maneuver, although he never executed it himself...until that point. It was a very subtle look at real military tactics regarding zeppelins.

One thing I like about this message board is the room for expanding the Indy 'world' beyond the fun aspect of the film, and into discussions about a very interesting point in our history. It is fun to examine why we saw what we did in these films, and shows that the film makers really did their research with regard to our hero's surroundings.

Thanks for the interesting background, Michaelson.

I wish more of the cut scenes from the blimp were shown.

--nitzsche

Follow Ups:

Re: Interesting question Jeff 16:49:45 10/29/98 (0)

Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

: : : : This was a fairly common thing in the 30's. The US had their own version with the biplane hung beneath too during that time period. Regards. Michaelson

: : : Okay SMART-GUY, why did it have the machine gun turret attached?
: : : chow,
: : : Jeff

: : Not sure what your SMART-GUY reference is to, but I'll be happy to reply to your question. Light armament was allowed on some small planes in Germany according to the Versalle (sp?) treaty at the end of WWI, though a standing air force was not. Since this was at the height of the Nazi political reign, 1938, why not the machine gun mounts? It was a Nazi marked zepplein and no one would have even questioned the existance of the mounted weapon. The US biplanes carried the same configuration with machine gun mounts as well, even though no one was at war at the time. This bi-plane/zeppelin arrangement was actually used in the Navy's first official South Pole exploration in support of Adm. Byrd in the early 30's, with the successful in air drop of the plane (as seen in Last Crusade) as well as the hair raising pick up in the air of the plane as well. You can actually see this in an OLD OLD movie seen sometimes on American Movie Classics called "Navy Airships", which shows the actual airship and biplanes practicing this manuver in California that went on that exhibition. They, too, sported mounted machine guns in turrets. Not sure who THEY expected to have to take on at the South Pole, but it was the military practice of the time period. Does that help? Regards. Michaelson

: I really appreciate you taking the time to explain that. I often wondered as well...(about the drop from the blimp, and subsequent lift).  Indy, having fought in WWI, obviously understood the basics of the maneuver, although he never executed it himself...until that point.  It was a very subtle look at real military tactics regarding zeppelins.

: One thing I like about this message board is the room for expanding the Indy 'world' beyond the fun aspect of the film, and into discussions about a very interesting point in our history.  It is fun to examine why we saw what we did in these films, and shows that the film makers really did their research with regard to our hero's surroundings.

: Thanks for the interesting background, Michaelson.

: I wish more of the cut scenes from the blimp were shown.

: --nitzsche

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]