Best War Film Part 2

[Professor Brensec]

In less than an hour I'm logging off to catch the "Battle Stations" episode that I've been waiting for, for ages.

Tonight it's about the Lancaster.

I still have 45 mins to wait and it's still too long.................lol.      ;D

[BFMF]

Hey, I was gonna dig up this post later today to ask a question!

[BFMF]

Pete should make this a sticky thread!

[Woodlouse2002]

[quote]I use my History Channel wanderings to keep this thread alive.................if it wasn't already obvious.
Well they are kind of movies.....Doco's, anyway they have alot of FILM footage in them.............lol.

Latest interesting (very) report from the WWII archives of Brensec.

Caught a Doco quite by accident, it was billed in the guide as "Mysteries at the bottom of the sea" or something like that.
It turned out to be about an archaelogical study of the "DD Tanks" on the Ocean floor off Omaha Beach. The first of any such investigation.

As most would know, one of the reasons the landing went so badly there is the fact that the tanks didn't get to the beach at all, let alone before the infantry.
As the Allies had learned at Dieppe, putting infantry without armoured support (as much for their value as cover as for their fire power against entrenchments) before infantry on a heavily defended beach is suicidal.

There has always been a mystery as to why the "DD's" didn't make it onto Omaha like they did on all other beaches (one main reason for the low casualties elsewhere).
They had trained and rehearsed for months and out of thousands of lauches from nearly 10,000 yards out, no tank had ever been lost, even at night, with simply a compass bearing.
So, Why didn't they get there? Why did they all sink?
It wasn't just the rough seas, because they were just as rough on the others.

It turns out that, they were trained to aim for a point on the shore to guide them to the landing site. In this case, the church spire at Verville (I think). The wave wash, even 6,000 yards out where they launched from, comes in at nearly 45 degrees at Omaha, from the right. The DD's were having to keep turning right as the tide was drifting them left. This adjustment in direction and the 45 degree angle of the waves resulted in the DD's being completely side-on to the wash. This caused the longer side of the canvas floatation device to collapse. Something it was not designed to stand up to.

Divers report all tanks (29) are facing (more or less) toward the shore, as the crews have reported for nearly 60 years, that

[Professor Brensec]

Of course, few of these reasons were mentioned, let alone examined, in the Doco. It probably would be still a little too political, besides I think the archaeologist was a Yank, too.

Any type of armoured vehicles on the beach, before the troops, would have been adequate to save the lives of many brave men. So, whatever they had, British, American or even PC's, the problem was born out of the method used to land them and I imagine they would have had the same DD arrangement, regardless of the tank type and its' attachments.

Personally, I wasn't aware that they were launched from so far out, 6,000 yards is a long way in heavy seas, for such an unstable craft, no matter how tried and tested.

Whenever I watch footage or movies or any kind of recount of any of the larger Allied defeats or operational failures once on the Continent, I can't help but think: Why wasn't the massive superiority in every type of air power able to be used to rescue, if not avoid these tragedies?
I mean, I place an imaginery force, in any given large operation, they are taken by surprise by superior numbers, unexpected developments of any kind. So long as they are in touch, why can't the weight, diversity in arms type and unstoppable nature of (say in the case of Omaha) 100 ground attack aircraft be bought to bear.
Surely with 11,000 aircraft available, they could have had 100 Typhoons, P47's or whatever, be appointed to circle the landing beaches and be at the disposal of the landing forces?
As I said, I can apply this thought to almost any of the failures from Normandy onwards (not that there were many, given the size of the task).

Oh well! Maybe there is no answer.  ;D

[HawkerTempest5]

What did you make of the Lancaster Battle Stations show brensec pal? I thought it was a good one. We had four new shows here last month about the P-38, Black Hawk, M1-A1 and the SR-71. I only saw the P-38 and Black Hawk shows though. Enjoyed the P-38 but the Black Hawk show just re-did Black Hawk Down and we've seen all that before.
I must say I prefare the WW2 era shows to the modern ones and there are still a few WW2 planes, tanks, ships that have not been done yet. Hope they get round to doing the Hurricane at some point.

[BFMF]

In a little while, i'm gonna be watching 'Enemy at the Gates'. I havn't seen it yet but I've wanted to since it was released.

[Rifleman]

I've been strolling around this thread for a bit now and still wondering if I missed a referrence to one of my all time favs in the war movie category....starring Kenneth More, but when it comes to Hollywoood actors, he never really had a leg to stand on with this movie...............?What a movie !

[BFMF]

What video is that rifleman?

[HawkerTempest5]

I've been strolling around this thread for a bit now and still wondering if I missed a referrence to one of my all time favs in the war movie category....starring Kenneth More, but when it comes to Hollywoood actors, he never really had a leg to stand on with this movie...............?What a movie !

I can't remember seeing Reach for the Sky mentioned in any posts here, but it's such a big topic, I could have missed it!
I saw it a little while ago and I remember thinking at the time that when it was filmed there should have been plenty of Spitfires around, but they used those low backed, bubble toped Mk XVI's that just didn't fit with 1941 at all!

[Professor Brensec]

Sorry guys, been hard at it for a few days. Now I'm wrecked.............lol.

I only got to see the Lanc Doco for about 10 mins and the Foxtel cable went stupid on me. No problem it's due to be shown a few times over the next week or so. I'll let you know then, Hawker.

I think Reach for the Sky has been mentioned, either the film or the book (don't forget there's a 1st part to this thread with about 12 pages in it).
I certainly remember disussion about it at some point.
I read Brickhills book when I was a kid and I remember talking on this thread about Bader being "entertained" by Galland when he was captured before he went to a stalag. Also the British being allowed to fly a plane over Gerrmany to drop some new legs for him.

What movie are you talking about, Rifle?

I saw "the man who never was" last week (for the 10th time). Good movie. There's also a History Channel Doco that's pretty much the movie over again with commentary.....lol  ;D

[Professor Brensec]

Oh yeah, forgot.

I saw a Doco (biography) on Hap Arnold last night. I didn't know much about him up till then. Quite a character. I say, thank God these people were around (Arnold, Mitchell, Marshall etc) when they were needed. Things could have been very different without any one of them.

[HawkerTempest5]

[quote]

I think Reach for the Sky has been mentioned, either the film or the book (don't forget there's a 1st part to this thread with about 12 pages in it).
I certainly remember disussion about it at some point.
I read Brickhills book when I was a kid and I remember talking on this thread about Bader being "entertained" by Galland when he was captured before he went to a stalag. Also the British being allowed to fly a plane over Gerrmany to drop some new legs for him.

What movie are you talking about, Rifle?

I saw "the man who never was" last week (for the 10th time). Good movie. There's also a History Channel Doco that's pretty much the movie over again with commentary.....lol

[Professor Brensec]

Hey Hawker,

How do you get your photo at the bottom of your posts to extend the full width like that?
As you can see, all I can do is get them to go in at the normal size.
If I stretch a photo length ways, it looks ridiculous.

Also what is that photo about (where and when) it looks modern.

[HawkerTempest5]

Hey Hawker,

How do you get your photo at the bottom of your posts to extend the full width like that?
As you can see, all I can do is get them to go in at the normal size.
If I stretch a photo length ways, it looks ridiculous.

Also what is that photo about (where and when) it looks modern.

Hi there brensec pal! All I did was chop the top and bottom off a standard 6oo pixel photo to make it a long thin picture.
I took this photo at the Duxford 2000 Battle of Britain air show. I'm standing about halfway down the flight line looking at a Spitfire MkVIII (in it's Pearl Harbour paint job). On this day, Twenty Four airworthy Spitfires were on show and twenty two of them flew together with a couple of Hurricanes. Pure magic!