Talk:Strategic Air Command (film)

Stewart's WWII experience
This article is about the film Strategic Air Command, and as a film, it is relevent to talk of the the creation of the film including any experince that contributed to the actors' perfomances.

That being said, I think it is within the scope of the article to provide links to the B-17 Flying Fortress and the B-24 Liberator as aircraft that Stewart flew in real life. True, he was an instructor pilot on the B-17, and his twenty combat missions were flown only in a B-24. However, if you think of it, this film represents a fork in the road of Stewart's life that he could have taken. It would have been possible for him to re-enter the Air Force, and fly B-36's and eventually the B-47.

I wonder if anyone can find any proof that Stewart might have actually had a B-36 joy ride with LeMay prior to creating the film. Suppose LeMay tried to recruit Stewart and Stewart propsed making the film. Or, suppose LeMay had the original idea for Stewart to make the film to boost USAAF recruitment? If such a thing happened, it should go into the article, because it would have been the genesis of the movie. And considering LeMay's attitudes, it may explain June Allyson's one-dimentional dialog.

I disagree with Buckboard's deleting links to the B-17 and B-24, as a mater of convience of the reader, this may be the first article where he learns of it. Leaving the links in will enrich the experience. --Woolhiser 20:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * On that basis I agree with you and will restore the links. I wasn't thinking encyclopedically and you were. Thanx.--Buckboard 09:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, hey not too shabby for my first week on the 'job' huh? I appreciate how quickly these disagreements can get resolved. I hope to bump into your edits more often, because I certainly learned some things - things that I can share with my dad who is also interested in films and WWII. --Woolhiser 12:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stategic Air Command (film).jpg
Image:Stategic Air Command (film).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It will be fixed, silly bot. Bzuk 17:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC).

Stewart and B-47
I have read ('ll have to go through mags to find the exact source I saw) that Jimmy Stewart became qualified on the B-47 after making the film. He was in the Reserves or Air Guard at the time. ANyone have a redily-accessible reliable source on this? It can probably be worked in with the rest of his piloting info. - BillCJ (talk) 04:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

First of four films?
The article says that the film was the "first of four films that depicted the role of the Strategic Air Command in the Cold War era". What are the other three? Shouldn't they be mentioned in the article, maybe under a "See also" section? --rogerd (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As of 2018, a total of only three of the movies are mentioned. It is possible that the "No. 4" was Dr. Strangelove, but this one is not mentioned, and neither is Fail Safe.24.156.77.8 (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Sgt. Bible
It may be picky on my part, but there are two statements made in describing Sgt. Bible's character, played by Harry Morgan, that I think need to be changed.

In the "PLOT" description, a comment is made:

"...Bible's character was introduced early in the film as an esteemed former crew member (also flight engineer) of Stewart's, who had performed admirably during their last troubled B-29 over Okinawa."

It was over Tokyo, not Okinawa. Quoting from the film:

Stewart: "Well, looks like we're taking up where we left off." Morgan: "I hope not!  We had two engines shot out on that last one over Tokyo, remember?" Stewart: "Yeah, that was quite a night, wasn't it?"

Also it is said: "Though Morgan is credited in the movie as "Sgt. Bible," his rank would probably have been closer to that of Technical Sergeant."

The "Sgt. Bible" character was in fact a Master Sergeant. His rank insignia of 6 stripes was displayed on his baseball cap. He later mentions "spot promotions" as means by which SAC was able to keep personnel. If this applied to enlisted personnel, he, too, could have gotten a spot promotion and may have been a Tech Sgt., but having been promoted to MSGT because of the crew's performance. BTW, the flight engineer on my father's B-29 WAS a Tech Sgt (Army Air Forces).

AF flight personnel could display their rank insignia on a blue cap. Also, it was common practice to refer to any sergeant rank as "sergeant", even though it could mean "Sergeant" thru "Chief Master Sergeant".

I'm a retired Air Force Officer, and I can confirm that common usage was to address all ranks of Sergeants below Chief Master Sergeant as 'Sergeant'. Chief Master Sergeants are usually addressed as 'Chief'. 'Chief' is an overloaded term in the Air Force as it is common for pilots to address their crew chiefs (aircraft technicians with primary responsibility for maintenance of an aircraft) as 'Chief' also. Jim (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

98.206.18.30 (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC) John B. Leonard, Jr. W9JBL@comcast.net USAF 1968-1972

98.206.18.30 (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Women
The only scene where women in uniform are seen comes in the scene where Stewart recruits "Ike", Alex Nicol, for his crew outside the squadron HQ. Two women can be seen walking, albeit slightly out of focus, behind our stars. They are clearly wearing summer uniforms.--Phyllis1753 (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's pretty cool. Good catch as well. I guess I was too taken by the "Oh no! Don't make it a career! Oh Boo! Hoo! Hoo!!" wife of his. Thanks for the corection! -OberRanks (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And who can forget June Allyson's over-the-top hysteria in front of Frank Lovejoy (Hawks), holding her head as if it would blow off. Oh yes, this is my all-time favorite airplane movie. Phyllis1753 (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, nice catch I didn’t even realize it as well. Great correction.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Regrettably, that's all there was; just those one or two seconds. I have the tape of it so I've seen the movie a fair number of times. The movie is still lily-white and 99% male. Such were the mores of those days.--Phyllis1753 (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

2009 revival of this issue
We seem to have a user who who is removing these statements as "POV" saying that there is no consensus to keep the item about race and women in the film. I refer to the above discussion that this was discussed last year and has has stood unchallenged for over 14 months. As far as the other point about Stewart wearing the United Nations Service Medal, that is a very significant error which deserves some mention, since his character is stated to have been off active duty since WW II yet wears ribbons of the Korean War. -OberRanks (talk) 04:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no POV (or OR) issues as the article's statements seem factual enough. I made a few tweaks just to be sure. Sounds like someone has POV issues of their own and is projecting them into the article. Whoever spotted the ribbon anachronisms surely deserves the Eagle Eye medal! Cheers.--Phyllis1753 (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I completely agree that there is no POV in simply stating a fact about the movie. What would be POV would be to say something like "the film is racist and sexist" but no one is doing that. A shame the filmmakers didnt address the integration issue. (I understand why they didn't in the 1950s.) If they had, this might have been hailed as one of the greatest forward thinking military movies of all time. Instead, today its not that well-known as I dont even think its available on DVD. -OberRanks (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Since I was the one that put back the material, I also agree but it might be advantageous to anchor the statements with a quote or cite to prevent the occasional editor coming upon the section and deleting it. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC).


 * Hmmm.. A quote or cite might be difficult as it is more an observation and insight that comes from seeing the movie a few times. Social values have changed so much in 50+ years and we've become more sensitive to the omissions that were common "back then".--Phyllis1753 (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that "insight" there was commentary, not strictly observation, and that is WP:OR. Find a reliable source per WP:RS that says these things, and cite it. If sources cannot be found, then the comments should not remain - that's policy, and I will take proper steps to see it is removed. - BilCat (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So are you saying that the statements are untrue? That there are in fact minorities and women depcited in the film and that Jimmy Stewart was not wearing Korean War service ribbons? If so, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you in that the film simply doesn't show any non-whites in uniform and only two women are ever seen as background characters. Its also a fact that the Colonel character wears Korean War service ribbons while stating several times he has been out since World War II. But, if you need sources, we can add them - although, in my opinion this is about the same as asking for a citation to prove that this film is about the Air Force. But, hey, we'll get you the citations :-) -OberRanks (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Citations were just added. I hope that clears up the matter. Best! -OberRanks (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * By the time of the Korean War, the U.S. Armed Forces had been integrated on the orders of President Truman - enlisted men and officers, too. A young officer, Lieutenant "Chappie" James was a Black man, and he flew F-86 Sabres over North Korea, right in "MiG Alley". Back then, flying the top jet fighter in the Air Force, right in the combat zone, was the prime assignment for any Air Force pilot who wanted to fly jets. Chappie James was an extremely successful officer in the Air Force, and he made it all the way through the ranks. He later became the first Black four-star general in the Air Force as commander of NORAD. Also, the first Black naval aviator, Ensign Jesse L. Brown, flew from an aircraft carrier off the coast of North Korea. He was quite esteemed by his squadron mates. Ensign Brown was shot down in North Korea, close to the Chosin Reservoir, and he died from his wounds. One of the other pilots in his squadron (a White man) landed his plane on hostile territory in an attempt to rescue Ensign Brown, and he was the last person ever to speak with Brown. For his attempted rescue, he was awarded the Navy Cross. Decades later, a frigate in the Navy was named the USS "Jesse L. Brown". 24.156.77.8 (talk) 06:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Was there really a large Reserve callup in 1955?
A central premise in the movie is that the Air Force has called up a large number of inactive reserve aircrew in order to man an expanding bomber fleet. Did this actually happen during the mid-1950s, or was it just a device to add conflict to the movie. Jim (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It wasn't during the mid-1950s, but during the Korean War, there was a significant number of B-29 crews from the Air Force Reserve who were called to active duty in that. There was some resentment about that, of course. Flight crews from the Reserves had to go to Japan, and then fly dangerous combat missions from there to bomb targets in North Korea, facing opposition from heavily armed interceptors like the MiG-15. Meanwhile, the heavy bomber crews who were in the Regular Air Force were flying B-29s and (their twins) B-50s, from bases everywhere, but especially in the United States, the Territory of Alaska, Canada, Greenland, England, Scotland, Italy, etc. Those missions had the heavy responsibility of carrying and taking care of nuclear weapons, but in the end, there was no actual combat. There was the distinct possibility that a war could have broken out in the area of West Germany and East Germany at any time, in which case the heavy bombers would have been ordered to drop atomic bombs on East Germany and Czechoslovakia, and onto any Soviet forces who had crossed over the border into West Germany. Very stressful, but in the end, it was still peacetime.24.156.77.8 (talk) 06:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Heavy vs. Medium Bombers
This article states: "The propeller-driven B-36 was then near the end of its service life and was about to be replaced by the jet-powered B-47 Stratojet, followed by the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress." The B-36 was a heavy bomber with substantially more range and load capacity over medium bombers like the B-47. The B-47 was introduced in 1951 to replace SAC's WWII-vintage medium bombers, B-29s and B-50s, not B-36s. Indeed, B-36 production was still ramping up at the time with the B-36H version introduced in December 1952, followed by the B-36J version the following year - these two variants would ultimately make up roughly half of the total number of B-36s built. The B-36 was eventually replaced by SAC's next heavy bomber, the B-52, introduced in 1955 - however, it must be acknowledged that the B-36's service life was relatively short (by today's standards) with the last aircraft retired in 1959 due to the rapid developments in aviation technology in the 1950s. It is interesting to note that the first aircraft that I worked on as an engineer, the F-16, in the 1980 timeframe is still in production some 40 years later and still, of course, in active service with the U.S. Air Force and Air Forces around the world. Then again, the B-52 is still in service too, although B-47s only lasted until the mid-60s.