Ship in DESTRUCTION

Hi everyone I'm new to the forum but not to UFO. I watched them all
first time around in 1970. The ship shown in DESTRUCTION was an RN
County Class destroyer. Has it ever been disclosed which ship it was?

--- Nick Braybrooke wrote:

> Hi everyone I'm new to the forum but not to UFO.
> I watched them all first time around in 1970.
> The ship shown in DESTRUCTION was an RN
> County Class destroyer. Has it ever been
> disclosed which ship it was?

Hi Nick and welcome aboard!

I've checked the episode on DVD. Of course there is a lot of stock
footage used therefore it could be that footage from several ships
were used. But in one side-shot you can read the writing "D06" on the
ship, so it must be the HAMPSHIRE (according to:
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/rn/destroyers/county/ ) But there is
a shot were *no* writing is on the port side of the ship at all.

The funny side: the HAMPSHIRE was paid off 1976 and scrapped. But UFO
is set in the 1980s. On the other hand, in the title sequence one
can see Straker reading a newspaper and although the camera pans over
it you can read in a still frame the date "Friday, February 2, 1969"!
Maybe it's the 3rd of February but the rest is clearly readable.
Little blooper :-)

Christian

>Straker reading a newspaper and although the camera pans over
it you can read in a still frame the date "Friday, February 2, 1969"!
Maybe it's the 3rd of February but the rest is clearly readable.
Little blooper :-)

I don't know if I'm strange for noticing this, but I caught a pic of the
newspaper Foster has in Exposed by accident whilst doing video captures, and
underneath the headline 'Miracle escape for US Colonel' the story is
actually about a strike going on amongst people who service gas ovens.

Jess

Hi

Speaking about bloopers what about the blatant one of where the ship turns
from a County class destroyer to a Tiger class cruiser half way through
sounding action stations and then changes between both during the attack
before finally reverting to a County at the very end. I still think that was
a very poor bit of continuity and they could have done much better.

Adrian

I guess it's because they thought a large percentage of the general public
would not notice, and I'm somewhat embarrassed to say that I didn't notice
either... Griff

-----Original Message-----
From: ADRIAN FLITCROFT [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 11:11 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: Ship in DESTRUCTION

Hi

Speaking about bloopers what about the blatant one of where the ship turns
from a County class destroyer to a Tiger class cruiser half way through
sounding action stations and then changes between both during the attack
before finally reverting to a County at the very end. I still think that was
a very poor bit of continuity and they could have done much better.

Adrian

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

"ADRIAN FLITCROFT" wrote:
> Hi
>
> Speaking about bloopers what about the blatant one of where the
> ship turns from a County class destroyer to a Tiger class cruiser
> half way through sounding action stations and then changes between
> both during the attack before finally reverting to a County at the
> very end. I still think that was a very poor bit of continuity and
> they could have done much better.

I didn't know that, thanks Adrian - but frankly I think that it's
inevitable that, where stock footage is used, the programme makers
aren't going to go to a great deal of trouble for the tiny
percentage of the audience who will notice continuity errors of this
kind. I think it's a bit of a stretch to call it a 'blooper' to be
quite honest.

Someone told me that modern guided missile destroyers are shown in
the Pearl Harbour film from a year or two back. I'd probably never
have noticed personally. I'm more likely to notice 1970s
guitars used in TV programmes set in the 50s, but I appreciate that
most people won't.

I must admit there is one error of this kind that does annoy me,
and that's the US F4 fighter aircraft that is meant to be a
Russian MiG in 'Ice Station Zebra'.

<I must admit there is one error of this kind that does annoy me, and that's
the US F4 fighter aircraft that is meant to be a Russian MiG in 'Ice Station
Zebra'.>

Yes, that REALLY annoyed me as well. G

The F4 US fighter being used for a MIG was only because they couldn't get a
MIG. It was the cold war and I can't see John Sturges calling up the USSR and
asking for the loan of a MIG. The F4 are what they used I believe during Top
Gun train to simular MIGs.

James K.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Maybe... but if they'd used an F86, not many people would have noticed
then... even some US batteries and even fighters 'took out' F86's thinking
they were MIG15's. In the end they had to have special marking... all this
eventually went away with reliable and encoded FOF systems... Griff

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 4:22 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [SHADO] Re: Ship in DESTRUCTION


The F4 US fighter being used for a MIG was only because they couldn't get a
MIG. It was the cold war and I can't see John Sturges calling up the USSR
and
asking for the loan of a MIG. The F4 are what they used I believe during
Top
Gun train to simular MIGs.

James K.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[hidden email] wrote:
> The F4 US fighter being used for a MIG was only because they
> couldn't get a MIG. It was the cold war and I can't see John
> Sturges calling up the USSR and asking for the loan of a MIG. The
> F4 are what they used I believe during Top Gun train to simular
> MIGs.

The only reason the F4 ('Phantom') was used is because it was
available stock footage of an aircraft doing a pickup from a cable.
It wasn't filmed especially for the film.

In any case, if they DID want to shoot the scene especially for the
movie, there were a few MiGs 'in captivity' in the West that could
conceivably have been used. Or they could have worked round it, or
a model could have been used - lots of possibilities, but using
stock footage of an F4 was just about the worst possible option in
my opinion.

.. then Griff wrote:

> Maybe... but if they'd used an F86, not many people would have
> noticed then... even some US batteries and even fighters 'took
> out' F86's thinking they were MIG15's. In the end they had to have
> special marking... all this eventually went away with reliable and
> encoded FOF systems...

I don't think it HAS gone away yet, sadly.

> Maybe... but if they'd used an F86, not many people would have
> noticed then... even some US batteries and even fighters 'took
> out' F86's thinking they were MIG15's. In the end they had to have
> special marking... all this eventually went away with reliable and
> encoded FOF systems...

I don't think it HAS gone away yet, sadly.

Yes, in light of current events, I reluctantly have to agree... incredible
and depressing isn't it?

James K. wrote:
> The F4 are what they used I believe during Top Gun train to simular
MIGs.

Actually, the fighter aircraft which played the parts of the hostile
MiGs were the USAF Northrop F-5E Tigershark, if my memory serves me
right.


Kaoru