"Dunkirk" movie: What was Right, What was Wrong

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Ducked


Our tanks were mostly pretty useless. US-supplied Shermans were at least usable, but I think the most significant contribution was lots and lots of US trucks.


No, the Sherman was issued to the elite Soviet Guards with a diesel engine and a higher velocity 76mm gun. The Soviet tankers actually quite liked it because it was far more ergonomic and comfortable than the T-34...
 
Originally Posted By: javacontour
As others have suggested, Hitler was relatively easy on the UK when France was invaded...


Mostly complete morons, and not actual historians...
 
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: javacontour
As others have suggested, Hitler was relatively easy on the UK when France was invaded...


Mostly complete morons, and not actual historians...


So, why didn't he have his tanks roll in and kill or capture over 300k allied soldiers? His armies made it that far, but suddenly could penetrate?
 
The idea that Hitler just let the British go is ridiculous and supported by almost no documentary evidence. It's based on fringe revisionists quoting a few cherry-picked statements and based on the notion the Germans had absolute operational control and knowledge of the situation. They didn’t. There was much tension between OKW and the commanders on the ground like Rommel, Kleist, and Guderian as they pushed farther and farther in by ignoring orders to consolidate, repeatedly. There were never any entreaties for peace after Dunkirk by Hitler's gov't. And if you want someone to surrender, you don't [censored] give them their small, best-trained and most experienced part of their army back so reconstitute a much larger one! You’d hold them hostage like the Germans ultimately did French POW’s. We have to take some things with a grain of salt, such as the writings of German generals post war (i.e. Halder, Rundstedt) tending to put all the blame on Hitler (of which he certainly deserves much), thereby exonerating some of their own failures and mistakes. But obviously the Panzer Halt Order was a failure of command, but one based on the confusing fast pace of events.

Most historians agree the main reason for the Halt Order was The Battle of Arras where the German panzer corridor, that stretched from the Ardennes to the Channel coast, was strategically vulnerable. It was lined with infantry and antitank guns increasingly left behind by their panzers charging headlong towards the Channel. The Allies' realized their only hope was the cut it off. They attempted a few times but were too weak - lacking communications and coordination amidst the rapid German advance to achieve it. British tanks broke through German lines making it about a quarter of the way through and sent German troops into a panic that was not stopped until Rommel ordered 88mm antiaircraft guns to be used to stop the British Matilda I & II tanks’ advance. This caused understandable consternation in the High Command as they still weren’t fully sure what the Brits and French had left.

There were other counterattacks by the French (one of which was led by de Gaulle no less). And there were still hundreds of thousands of French soldiers fighting that needed mopping up. The Wehrmacht began the second phase of the Battle called Case Red. The French had found a way to cope with the speed of the panzers with their “Hedgehog” tactics and the fighting in the Norman areas of hedgerows slowed the panzers and turned the affair into a conventional almost WWI-style artillery and infantry duel.

As previously stated, the terrain around Dunkirk is not well suited to armor. The German panzers were indeed in dire need of maintenance, there was little in the way of mechanized infantry with the panzers. As stated in the film, British hardly thought the operation would be as successful with TEN TIMES the number of troops evacuated as originally projected! If the British underestimated their sealift capacity, the Germans would even more so since they had the Luftwaffe, or so they thought, as they were plagued by bad weather. So the Germans hardly thought whatever British Expeditionary Forces that managed to escape the Luftwaffe gauntlet would matter much. Also, nearly as many BEF made it out in the period after Dunkirk as did during the operation in various other evacuations that went on into August. This begs the question of was Dunkirk even the "miricle" it was portrayed as in that while it was great for morale, in the end the British would have survived anyways and even smaller numbers of BEF making it back to Britain may have still enabled the British Army to reconstitute itself.

One thing I wish the film had spent more time on was the (mostly) French fighting Dunkirk and very effectively blocked the German ground advance fighting like, in the words of one British senior officer, "The Spartan 300". There were also many running battles around the Dunkirk and Lille with British desperately fighting holding actions to cover the escapes. But the film was already expensive and Nolan had to sort of summarize some events. There were also a few massacres of the beloved British soldiers by the Nazi SS-Totenkopf at Le Paradis, near Dunkirk, and those that were left behind weren’t treated very well until they reached their final POW camps in Germany. Hardly a love affair of 'good Aryans'...
 
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: javacontour
As others have suggested, Hitler was relatively easy on the UK when France was invaded...


Mostly complete morons, and not actual historians...


So, why didn't he have his tanks roll in and kill or capture over 300k allied soldiers? His armies made it that far, but suddenly could penetrate?


See above. I wasn't personally insulting you, it's just that some 'writers' attempt to question the Western Allied cause and sacrifice by trivializing events, and applying hindsight as if there was a palpable choice Hitler necessarily made. Almost every major historian and writer I know rejects "he let them go" theory...

But on the face of it, letting the British get back 215,000 soldiers and expecting that that would make them less willing to fight on is a bit strange. But in any case, they actually did try to attack and capture the 300,000 Allied soldiers. But I'm sure as a vet, you understand a lot of those Allied soldiers had guns and works they were fighting from and stuff. So, the actual issue was why didn't they capture Dunkirk BEFORE the 400,000 Allied soldiers were able to get into the pocket around Dunkirk and set up a proper defense. Because the Panzer Halt Order was rescinded after three days and the Luftwaffe was already bombing and Heer artillery was firing into Dunkirk as well, and there was fierce fighting all around the area...

In any case, here's a long article and book extract that explains it better than I ever can: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/5902668/Dunkirk-a-miracle-of-war.html
 
I saw it last night at the drive in. They did a really good job with it. I was thinking about how it would feel to be caught up in that situation. One of the biggest events in the history of mankind.
 
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: Ducked
There you go

p183960_b_v8_ae.jpg


Must have been late 60's cos I saw it on arriving home from school. IIRC it was even worse than it looks.
Non-standard tires. Nice welding job on the Browning mount.


It should probably have sand tyres. Ridiculously shiny paintwork. Absolutely no desert travel equipment or supplies (or indeed any equipment of any kind). Full of Americans.

Other than that its pretty authentic.
 
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: Ducked

Must have been late 60's cos I saw it on arriving home from school. IIRC it was even worse than it looks.
Non-standard tires. Nice welding job on the Browning mount.


It should probably have sand tyres. Ridiculously shiny paintwork. Absolutely no desert travel equipment or supplies (or indeed any equipment of any kind). Full of Americans.

Other than that its pretty authentic.


The first season is on Amazon for $12. Somewhat tempted, I remember watching them when they were on re-runs on the local television channel. Combat! is better.
 
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: Ducked

Must have been late 60's cos I saw it on arriving home from school. IIRC it was even worse than it looks.
Non-standard tires. Nice welding job on the Browning mount.


It should probably have sand tyres. Ridiculously shiny paintwork. Absolutely no desert travel equipment or supplies (or indeed any equipment of any kind). Full of Americans.

Other than that its pretty authentic.


The first season is on Amazon for $12. Somewhat tempted, I remember watching them when they were on re-runs on the local television channel. Combat! is better.


There is/was a full episode on youtube, but my recollection of the series didn't encourage me to watch it.

Real thing'd be more like this. I can understand them not wanting to cut the grille though.

simonspicssas.jpg
 
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: Ducked
There you go

p183960_b_v8_ae.jpg


Must have been late 60's cos I saw it on arriving home from school. IIRC it was even worse than it looks.
Non-standard tires. Nice welding job on the Browning mount.


It should probably have sand tyres. Ridiculously shiny paintwork. Absolutely no desert travel equipment or supplies (or indeed any equipment of any kind). Full of Americans.

Other than that its pretty authentic.
I was absolutely enamored with Rat Patrol at the time, when I was in Grade 5 - without resorting to the 'net, I think three of the characters were Sarge, Tully, and Pettigrew. There were trading cards w/ inedible bubble gum for $0.05 a pack - I eventually collected the whole set. I think I still have bunch of them. I also had a model kit c/w sand dunes, palm trees, German tanks, and a couple of Jeeps w/ 50-cal. machine guns in the back.

I've since read that something like this was tried and failed dismally. The Panzers and Stukas chewed them up in a hurry.

As far as Dunkirk the movie, I thought it was very well done. It was a visual spectacle - the cinematography was absolutely brilliant - full of haunting images.
 
Originally Posted By: HondaRULZ
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Spoiler Alert

Great movie. However, I can't figure out why the Spitfire pilot was gliding over the troops, yet flew so far up the coast and got captured.


do the Millennials approve? does it have a zombie in it?


No, but I think there might be a few Vampires in it...
21.gif
 
Here's an "inaccuracies" link: http://www.moviemistakes.com/film12004/factual

I think it's a bit nitpicky. I think the larger criticisms I've seen is the film is a series vignettes that are more or less unrelated and that the film furthers the myth that it was civilian weekend yacht drivers that saved the British Army when the vast majority, something over 80%, were taken off by either the Royal Navy or their maritime service...
 
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Here's an "inaccuracies" link: http://www.moviemistakes.com/film12004/factual

I think it's a bit nitpicky. I think the larger criticisms I've seen is the film is a series vignettes that are more or less unrelated and that the film furthers the myth that it was civilian weekend yacht drivers that saved the British Army when the vast majority, something over 80%, were taken off by either the Royal Navy or their maritime service...


I thought the small boats were mostly ferrying out to larger craft (destroyers etc) rather than round-tripping the whole way, so a who-did-who breakdown would be fairly difficult to work out.
 
Originally Posted By: Number_35
Ducked said:
HerrStig said:
Ducked said:
There you go

p183960_b_v8_ae.jpg




I've since read that something like this was tried and failed dismally. The Panzers and Stukas chewed them up in a hurry.



Dunno what you're referring to there. I believe The Rat Patrol, as an American unit operating armed jeeps in the Western Desert, had no basis in fact.

The SAS, LRDG and Popski's Private Army are well documented and were fairly successful, but weren't American, which is what [censored] people off in the UK and Australia when The Rat Patrol aired there. This was the 60's, so quite a lot of people who were in the Western Desert were still around, including quite a few in the TV technician unions.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Here's an "inaccuracies" link: http://www.moviemistakes.com/film12004/factual

I think it's a bit nitpicky. I think the larger criticisms I've seen is the film is a series vignettes that are more or less unrelated and that the film furthers the myth that it was civilian weekend yacht drivers that saved the British Army when the vast majority, something over 80%, were taken off by either the Royal Navy or their maritime service...


It just got to the cheap cinema's here, and I saw it yesterday, so I'm late with my comments.

I thought it was pretty good, and conveyed a feeling of barely controlled panic (which I'm sure I would have felt if I had been there) quite well.

However, I thought it failed to convey the scale of the thing, or the general wrack and ruin which is evident in authentic photos from the time.

That's what was wrong with the opening scene where the fugitive Brit walks about 100 yards from the French perimeter barricade (not a general feature of WW2 street fighting, more a feature of Les Miserables) and finds himself on the beach. Not much room for a 400.000 force.

The beaches are too tidy, they don't have nearly enough troops on them, and there isn't nearly enough smoke in the air. These are all things that could be fixed with CGI if you didn't have the budget to do them solid, and I'm surprised they weren't.

When we get to the nautical scenes, many of the vessels in open water are quite clearly at anchor. Not only are they not moving (no wakes) but you can SEE the anchor cables. This would of course have been tactical suicide at that time and place. I can see how it makes filming easier and safer, but they could surely have CGI'd out the cables at least and faked some water movement, or generated some current with prop wash from vessels out of shot.

The fear of the spilt bunker fuel igniting while picking up survivors (which subsequently happened) struck me as overdone, since I doubt heavy fuel oil of the type shown is that inflammable on open water. Maybe enough to worry a fire safety officer, but not enough to worry someone being strafed.

The other stuff in that link is a bit picky. Full marks for observation (I only spotted the concrete tetrahedron things) but I don't think they detract significantly from the film.
 
Originally Posted By: Toy4x4
My grandfather on Mom's side was rescued from Dunkirk. I was sifting through a box of Mom's old tools and found his knife. It has 1943, W&SB, Sheffield stamped on it.


I think that is a sailors knife. The spike is for undoing knots.
 
I did some research on the Spitfire...it has a wing loading maximum of 24.5 pounds per square foot, with wing area about 242 square feet. Without fuel (about 510 lbs in early war) or ammunition (2400 rounds of .303 Enfield, up until 1942) this number would have much lighter, down to around 22 with no fuel and full ammo.

I have a good bit of time in the Pilatus PC-12, which has a glide ratio of 2.4 miles per 1000' altitude. The wing loading here is 37.8 pounds per square foot.

So based on those numbers, and the reports that the Spitfire had a very flat glide path, I'd say that the gliding sequence was pretty accurate, especially with all the speed he would have been carrying when the engine quit. In the Pilatus you will float and float and float if too fast, I once had to go around after floating 1/2 way down a 10,000 foot runway - with gear and all flaps extended.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top