Badge of No. 422 Squadron, Royal Canadian Air Force.  Raised in Northern Ireland, April 1942 as a General Reconnaissance Squadron attached to RAF Coastal Command, the Squadron flew a variety of aircraft in the course of the war, mainly Short Sunderland flying boats.  Battle honours include the Battle of the Atlantic, English Channel and North Sea patrol, Bay of Biscay patrol, Normandy 1944, and Arctic convoy transport and escort, 1942.  The Squadron was redisignated a Transport Squadron in 1945, and dissolved shortly after.  Subsequently, No. 422 was reconstituted as a fighter squadron in the RCAF.  Best regards, JR.

Tomahawk Squadron

illustration showing a ethiopian soldier during the Second Italo-Abyssinian War

ethiopian soldier

Released only one year after United Artists' "Battle of Britain", "Tora ! Tora ! Tora !" is an interesting comparison.  Everything about this project - a recreation of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour - was extremely complicated; more so, in fact, than was the case with "Battle of Britain".  As with the latter movie, however, huge efforts were made to secure a degree of balance between the view of the conflicting parties, and also authenticity in ships, aircraft and equipment.  This was very, very difficult in this case.  Flyable examples of the Japanese aircraft  used at Pearl were simply unavailable; it was necessary to use adapted US aircraft.  Also, the question of authenticity in the case of aircraft carriers must have been a nightmare for the producers.  Again, carriers contemporary with the Pearl attack were unavailable (they were in Davy Jones' Locker).  Consequently, more recent US carriers, along with precise miniature models, had to be used.  Same was true, to a substantial extent, when it came to US ships.  OK, the purists will quibble, but my own view is that, at the end, the producers succeeded magnificently.

Like "Battle of Britain", "Tora ! Tora ! Tora !" has been criticized for poor characterization and a certain woodenness of script.  Well, perhaps.  The other side of that coin is that the movie attempted to recreate Pearl Harbour with the minimum use of such devices as composite/fictional characters, and with the greatest possible fidelity to what actually happened.  Also, for myself, I am not sure that I find the characterization so incompetent, or the script so wooden, given the quality of the achievement.

I love this one - a truly great war movie, in spite of the great difficulties that faced its producers, writers and directors.  Most professional reviewers may not have liked it much but, even initially, it was a significant box office hit in the US, and a great hit in Japan.  Must say something for it.  Best regards, JR.