OT: Dunkirk the Movie!

[adarbrauner]

Hi Bill; the book of Hans von Luck is in the bibliography of the Wiki article above mentioned by "Skyland" about Major Becker.

Another book in that same list I'd be particularly interested to read is "Bernage, Georges and Jean-Pierre Benamou, Goodwood: Bombardement géant anti-panzers. Editions Heimdal, (1994) ISBN" even though in French.

I happened to read so many interesting discussions here about the efficiency of tactical carpet bombing, that some more referenced and actual detailed information may help (Ad. John Cochrane, thinking about you also).

[adarbrauner]

ORIGINAL: Skyland

ORIGINAL: rustysi

....and the tanks too. How many divisions relied upon Czech tanks? and French tanks were also used (although I don't know if the latter equipped panzer divisions.

(...) French tanks were used later on, but from what I know it looks like most were supplied to Germany's allies. One exception IIRC was the reconstitution of the 21st (Africa Corps) Panzer division. Some veterans of North Africa requested the division be reconstituted. They were allowed to do so, but they were told no German assets were available, so they used French tanks. I think this outfit was the one German armored unit to engage on D-Day. The one that split the British beaches and nearly made it to the coast. Withdrew due to lack of support, or so the story goes. That is if my memory doesn't fail me... Again.[:D]

Only chassis of french armoured vehicles were used.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Be ... ndo_Becker

Something like that...there's a whole German newsreel (whom the picture is taken from) of Rommel's inspection of a self propelled battery of the 21th Panzer, equipped with the French chassis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjmfscuAqLU

[BBfanboy]

Looks like they took the wheels off of a PAK 75 a/t gun and dropped it on the French tank chassis. No turret, but the gun got more mobile and gained some height which would help if the tank body could stay hull-down at the crest of a hill/berm.

[MakeeLearn]

Becker, a mechanical engineer, instituted a program of converting captured vehicles and weapons into usable instruments for the German army.

A company called Alkett, based near Berlin, converted 12 Lorraine 37L tractors into 10.5cm leFH-18/40 auf Geschuetzwagen Lorraine Schlepper(f) self-propelled artillery guns in 1942. They were a large manufacturer of armored fighting vehicles for the German Army during World War Two. German Army Major Alfred Becker worked with the company to create these conversions. The following year he was in Normandy at the head of a Baukommando, a construction command unit. Becker’s men, engineers and mechanics converted a further 12 Lorraine 37L tractors into self-propelled artillery gun by fixing 10.5cm leFH-18/40 howitzers onto the top of these vehicles and making an armored open crew compartment.

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/N ... pper-f.php

[BBfanboy]

Yikes- that gun must weigh as much as the chassis! Don't drive across a slope with it!

[SheperdN7]

Saw it 2 nights ago, 10/10 and Have seen it 3 more times since (and I paid for all 4 screenings) I absolutely loved this movie and I think directors everywhere should bow down to Nolan's genius.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: SheperdN7

Saw it 2 nights ago, 10/10 and Have seen it 3 more times since (and I paid for all 4 screenings) I absolutely loved this movie and I think directors everywhere should bow down to Nolan's genius.

warspite1

I saw it Friday and loved it too. Will be taking both my little cruisers for an imax screening this week [:)]

There are some reviews in the GD forum

tm.asp?m=4280098&mpage=2&#4319246

[Canoerebel]

I don't know how I can show my face here, but I didn't like it very much. I thought it "okay." [:(]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I don't know how I can show my face here, but I didn't like it very much. I thought it "okay." [:(]

warspite1

Why? Lots of people don't seem to have liked it. You're entitled to your opinion!

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I don't know how I can show my face here, but I didn't like it very much. I thought it "okay." [:(]

As our GD posts will attest, I'm in your camp here too, CR. I thought it a worthwhile movie, but it wasn't what I was looking for / expecting and I was at least mildly disappointed.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I don't know how I can show my face here, but I didn't like it very much. I thought it "okay." [:(]

I saw your other comments on the movie. Sounds like you were hoping for a historians overview of what was happening and what the implications of the evacuation were. From comments on late night TV by Kenneth Branaugh and another actor, the director's purpose was to show how a courageous people united in courage came to stand up to a great evil and saved their country.

The personal courage of civilians and military people alike was the focus rather than the historic strategic withdrawal. Like the AARs on this forum that have captured personal stories amid the chaos of war, I look forward to seeing "what it was like" because I already know the overview of what happened. Haven't gone yet because I want to see it with my son who is in Ottawa at a national karate training seminar.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I don't know how I can show my face here, but I didn't like it very much. I thought it "okay." [:(]

I saw your other comments on the movie. Sounds like you were hoping for a historians overview of what was happening and what the implications of the evacuation were. From comments on late night TV by Kenneth Branaugh and another actor, the director's purpose was to show how a courageous people united in courage came to stand up to a great evil and saved their country.

The personal courage of civilians and military people alike was the focus rather than the historic strategic withdrawal. Like the AARs on this forum that have captured personal stories amid the chaos of war, I look forward to seeing "what it was like" because I already know the overview of what happened. Haven't gone yet because I want to see it with my son who is in Ottawa at a national karate training seminar.

In my opinion, the Director's approach was inherently flawed in an effort to convey any sort of grandeur. I read an interview with the director before I saw the movie and I know he avoided Churchill's speech until the end and intentionally downplayed the numbers on the beach. He sought to downplay the numbers involved to focus on individual heroism and courage. I guess that's his call.

But talking about an evacuation of 300,000 men whilest showing no more than a few hundred on the beach belies the miraculous scale of the evacuation. If his effort was to belie or ignore the miraculous scale of the real event by focusing on the individual story exclusively, then I consider that an opportunity missed. For the near complete evacuation of so large a number of men *was* the story of Dunkirk. It was the reason that Britain was able to resist later in 1940-1941. Not a few heroic and brave individuals' efforts, as compelling and interesting as they were.

I will also add that my favorite vignette was the civilian boat that was requisitioned with the father and two boys. That dynamic was very well played and deeply touching. Probably my favorite segments.

My least favorite were the beach segments. I felt those were comparatively poorly executed-for the reasons above (lack of scale) and implausibility.

[ChezDaJez]

I didn't like it either. In fact, I walked out after one hour. The movie reminds me of another movie that promised similar accuracy... TMTSNBN.

I thought there was very little historical accuracy. I was expecting something more along the lines of Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan or The Pacific.

The back and forth between the day air combat scenes and the night torpedo attack scenes and back left me completely confused. It was like those scenes were on opposite ends of the world. The port at night was totally lit up, no black out in evidence. The aerial combat scenes didn't ring true either.

So no, I didn't like it.

[pontiouspilot]

I thought they cheaped out on special effects....with the ability to generate computer visuals and effects this was a limp effort. Also I wonder if they got a deal for Kenneth Branaugh to stand in the same place for whole movie.

[witpqs]

Even though obviously many liked it those observations are disappointing. The surrounding story and the scale of Dunkirk is amazing. A series of close-in scenes cannot do that justice. I'll wait to see it on TV.

Did any of you see it in Imax?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Even though obviously many liked it those observations are disappointing. The surrounding story and the scale of Dunkirk is amazing. A series of close-in scenes cannot do that justice. I'll wait to see it on TV.

Did any of you see it in Imax?

warspite1

I saw it on 'normal' but will be watching in imax on Wednesday so will let you know if there is any noticeable difference. I suspect there will be - the high pitched scream of the Ju-87's was impressively scary as it was, so I am expecting an even greater experience (although never having viewed in imax before, I'm not completely sure what to expect!).

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

I saw your other comments on the movie. Sounds like you were hoping for a historians overview of what was happening and what the implications of the evacuation were. From comments on late night TV by Kenneth Branaugh and another actor, the director's purpose was to show how a courageous people united in courage came to stand up to a great evil and saved their country.

The personal courage of civilians and military people alike was the focus rather than the historic strategic withdrawal. Like the AARs on this forum that have captured personal stories amid the chaos of war, I look forward to seeing "what it was like" because I already know the overview of what happened. Haven't gone yet because I want to see it with my son who is in Ottawa at a national karate training seminar.

warspite1

I hope the film is what you are expecting. I didn't know what to expect - I hadn't read comments from Nolan or Branagh or anyone pre-watching, but having seen the film I think you are right to approach it as you are. This is not a film that seeks to tell the overall story of Dunkirk. In the same way that Stalingrad did not tell the story of Case Blue, Pearl Harbor did not tell the story of the Hawaiian operation (or anything else) or Battle of the Bulge did not tell the story of Wacht Am Rhein, Dunkirk does not give the viewer an historical blow by blow account of the evacuation, but instead focuses on individual elements of that operation. Perhaps one of the things that disappoints people is that it doesn't focus on the most important element of Dunkirk (the destroyers were responsible for 2/3rds of the those rescued) - but I think that this does not detract from the quality of the film. There is some interesting evidence emerging that suggests the RAF contribution to success was much greater than the 'myth' suggests - if true, it was nice for the 'flyboys' to have their overdue place in the sun.

What I can say imo is that unlike the three examples mentioned above (where the title suggests a full story of the battle/campaign is to be relayed), Dunkirk was actually worth watching - and then some! (it wasn't excruciatingly dull like the former, good when one is ten years old like the latter, and a steaming pile of dung like the other one) and I certainly can't wait for Wednesday when I see Mark Rylance, Tom Hardy (the sound and look of those Spitfires are worth the admission money alone) and co go into battle again [8D].

The approach adopted by Nolan will satisfy some (a great many according to imdb) and not others* (including some 'Russian commentators' who say the film celebrates cowardice - they obviously seem not to have heard of Odessa, where a Soviet army, trapped against the sea, was evacuated to live to fight another day and more important battles to come rather than populate a German prisoner of war camp [8|]), and that's fine, we all have different expectations/hopes - not to mention political footballs to kick [;)].

My eldest little warspite is really looking forward to it - I love taking her to these sort of things to build on her burgeoning interest in history - and I hope the wait proves worthwhile for you and your son too [:)].


* Apparently, its not just the 'Russians' a French journo is angry because Dunkirk neglects the French contribution. He clearly is looking for a faux reason to be outraged. Dunkirk is a film about the British experience at Dunkirk. Even so, because of the interplay between the British and French forces it is fitting to make reference to the French out of a sense of fairness. But the point is, THIS FILM DOES SO.

To say it neglects the French - when the opening shot shows FRENCH ONLY soldiers manning the perimeter (while the retreating British soldier is motioned on to the beach as the French continue fighting), when it mentions during the action (despite the limited dialogue) that the French soldiers are manning the perimeter and when it mentions at the end of the film that the British wait longer to try and get more French (who have been manning said perimeter) off - is simply false and is just looking for a sense of outrage where none is necessary or warranted.

To be fair its not just 'the French'. If you recall certain sections of the British media got all huffy because Saving Private Ryan didn't mention British/Canadian involvement on D-Day. This despite the fact that Saving Private Ryan, although set in Normandy was a story about a deeply personal American experience; it was based on a true story and was about a rule that was brought in for US servicemen following the loss of FIVE Sullivan brothers on USS Juneau. Sure, the film could've included acknowledgement to the British and Canadians, but it didn't and there was just no reason to necessarily include them. It wasn't an insult. But hey - people nowadays love playing the victim don't they? [8|]

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I saw it Friday and loved it too. Will be taking both my little cruisers for an imax screening this week [:)]

There are some reviews in the GD forum

tm.asp?m=4280098&mpage=2�

I hope to see it soon!

BTW, I read that the French are not that pleased with the movie (i.e. downplaying of French rearguard that held the Germans plus fact that there were French soldiers evacuated as well)...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Lecivius]

I have not seen it, yet. But perhaps the best thing of this movie was a news shot describing the opening, and then going on to have a 5 minute interview with a 90+ year old gentleman living here in Denver who was there, on the beach. Drafted just 2 months before the war started, you could see him trying to describe it. After the collapse, he said his officers turned to them & said "Boys, you are on your own". Groups of men headed to the town, and the beach, more on rumor than anything else. Getting to the beach and collapsing because "I was done. I couldn't swim, you see". How a Scotsman swam him out to a small boat. Even on TV, tears, and the beginning of the thousand mile stare.

I've been there. But nothing like that.

[Major Shane]

I saw the movie on Saturday. It was impressive, very well done by Nolan. He honored history and those who served. The dogfighting, the sound of the Stukas, and the sinking ships all made you feel as if you were there. I give it 5 stars and highly recommend it.