OT: Dunkirk the Movie!

[Macclan5]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

VIP theatres - adults only AFAIK - lisc probably means licensed to serve alcohol. Meant to attract people who don't want to have a restaurant date.

Whoa - talk about insightful ! [8D]

[witpqs]

Thanks, guys. There are two movie theaters nearby. One is fairly new and modern. The other closed down about 8 or 9 years ago then reopened a couple of years back after extensive renovation into a VIP sort of deal. I haven't been there yet but I've only heard about luxurious seating and so on. The adult focus would make sense for them.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: sprior

It's not widely-known but the man who was in command of the Dunkirk evacuation, Admiral Ramsay, was also in command for operation Neptune. sadly he was killed in a plane crash in 1944

Interesting. Is that the role played by Kenneth Branaugh in the trailers?

warspite1

Ramsay, as Vice-Admiral Dover, wouldn't have been at Dunkirk, he was orchestrating the operation from Dover.

I assume that Branagh is William Tennant (he of HMS Repulse - Force Z fame) or a similar character. Tennant directed evacuation operations from the beaches as Senior Naval Officer Dunkirk.

In the 1958 movie, the room where Ramsay runs the operation from is the actual room used IRL.
This rates as one of the best war movies made, with a few small mistakes the equipment used is from the right period (prolly still first line gear fro the British Army at that point), despite a few chances for "German atrocities, ie wounded left behind, this doesnt happen. I would assume that the British Army provided troops for the beach scenes, it really looks like there are thousands on the beach.

As for the BoB movie, they couldnt make it better now. Not mentioned is the closing "credits" listing the Nationalities of the Allied pilots who died, truly the Empire defending the United Kingdom.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

I believe for all the talk of the mighty German armored/mechanized divisions, that they were largest users of horse-drawn equipment/transports in WW2. The UK highly mechanized/motorized before the war, and the US was as well. The Russians less so, but I think still more than the Germans (one of the top lend-lease items to the Soviets was trucks IIRC). The Japanese probably had the least mechanization, but I don't think they had a lot of horses either. They designed a lot of their equipment to be man-portable (probably often by non-soldiers).

Mike

P.S. When I say highly mechanized/motorized, I don't mean to say everyone rode instead of walked. I am really talking about the use of horse transport vs. motorized/mechanized transport where it was necessary (heavy weapon platoons, artillery/ATGs, etc.). I fully understand that most infantry troops, at least outside the armored/mech divisions, walked into battle.

warspite1

The problem was realised before the war, but in Hitler's mad rush to take over Europe there was not the time or the resources to fix the problem. Fact was in 1935 there was 1 vehicle for every 65 Germans, and on the outbreak of war that had only increased to 1 in 47. In Britain those numbers were 1 in 23 and 1 in 14 and even higher in France. For the US it was 1 in 5 and 1 in 3.

Why was this a problem? Well the fewer cars per populace, the fewer drivers, the fewer mechanics, the fewer factories and assembly lines, spare parts and workshops. The factories needed to pump out the motor vehicles required by the army took time to build up and so did all the ancillary items that were needed to go with them. And of course there was the added complication that the air force and the navy were also competing for the limited resources.

Oberst Adolf von Schell was made Plenipotentiary for Motor Vehicles and he spent time in Detroit seeing how Ford worked and what Germany needed if they were to bring the army into the 20th Century. The German motor industry had too many companies making too many different types of vehicle with the result that the precious few resources to go round were not being used to best effect. Outside of the panzer and motorised divisions an over reliance upon horses was the result.

Figures from James Holland War In The West

Also also let us not forget the German usage of numerous foreign trucks (French, Czech etc.) that were also used until they broke down due to overuse and lack of spare parts and maintenance...


Leo "Apollo11"

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy




Interesting. Is that the role played by Kenneth Branaugh in the trailers?

warspite1

Ramsay, as Vice-Admiral Dover, wouldn't have been at Dunkirk, he was orchestrating the operation from Dover.

I assume that Branagh is William Tennant (he of HMS Repulse - Force Z fame) or a similar character. Tennant directed evacuation operations from the beaches as Senior Naval Officer Dunkirk.

In the 1958 movie, the room where Ramsay runs the operation from is the actual room used IRL.
This rates as one of the best war movies made, with a few small mistakes the equipment used is from the right period (prolly still first line gear fro the British Army at that point), despite a few chances for "German atrocities, ie wounded left behind, this doesnt happen. I would assume that the British Army provided troops for the beach scenes, it really looks like there are thousands on the beach.

As for the BoB movie, they couldnt make it better now. Not mentioned is the closing "credits" listing the Nationalities of the Allied pilots who died, truly the Empire defending the United Kingdom.

warspite1

Not to forget the other nationalities, of which the Polish and Czech contribution stands out.

The end credits for the Battle of Britain contains as fine piece of music as you will find anywhere in cinema history. Kleenex at the ready....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLDZkypBHnw

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

I believe for all the talk of the mighty German armored/mechanized divisions, that they were largest users of horse-drawn equipment/transports in WW2. The UK highly mechanized/motorized before the war, and the US was as well. The Russians less so, but I think still more than the Germans (one of the top lend-lease items to the Soviets was trucks IIRC). The Japanese probably had the least mechanization, but I don't think they had a lot of horses either. They designed a lot of their equipment to be man-portable (probably often by non-soldiers).

Mike

P.S. When I say highly mechanized/motorized, I don't mean to say everyone rode instead of walked. I am really talking about the use of horse transport vs. motorized/mechanized transport where it was necessary (heavy weapon platoons, artillery/ATGs, etc.). I fully understand that most infantry troops, at least outside the armored/mech divisions, walked into battle.

warspite1

The problem was realised before the war, but in Hitler's mad rush to take over Europe there was not the time or the resources to fix the problem. Fact was in 1935 there was 1 vehicle for every 65 Germans, and on the outbreak of war that had only increased to 1 in 47. In Britain those numbers were 1 in 23 and 1 in 14 and even higher in France. For the US it was 1 in 5 and 1 in 3.

Why was this a problem? Well the fewer cars per populace, the fewer drivers, the fewer mechanics, the fewer factories and assembly lines, spare parts and workshops. The factories needed to pump out the motor vehicles required by the army took time to build up and so did all the ancillary items that were needed to go with them. And of course there was the added complication that the air force and the navy were also competing for the limited resources.

Oberst Adolf von Schell was made Plenipotentiary for Motor Vehicles and he spent time in Detroit seeing how Ford worked and what Germany needed if they were to bring the army into the 20th Century. The German motor industry had too many companies making too many different types of vehicle with the result that the precious few resources to go round were not being used to best effect. Outside of the panzer and motorised divisions an over reliance upon horses was the result.

Figures from James Holland War In The West

Also also let us not forget the German usage of numerous foreign trucks (French, Czech etc.) that were also used until they broke down due to overuse and lack of spare parts and maintenance...


Leo "Apollo11"

warspite1

....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.

[Skyros]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: JeffK

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Ramsay, as Vice-Admiral Dover, wouldn't have been at Dunkirk, he was orchestrating the operation from Dover.

I assume that Branagh is William Tennant (he of HMS Repulse - Force Z fame) or a similar character. Tennant directed evacuation operations from the beaches as Senior Naval Officer Dunkirk.

In the 1958 movie, the room where Ramsay runs the operation from is the actual room used IRL.
This rates as one of the best war movies made, with a few small mistakes the equipment used is from the right period (prolly still first line gear fro the British Army at that point), despite a few chances for "German atrocities, ie wounded left behind, this doesnt happen. I would assume that the British Army provided troops for the beach scenes, it really looks like there are thousands on the beach.

As for the BoB movie, they couldnt make it better now. Not mentioned is the closing "credits" listing the Nationalities of the Allied pilots who died, truly the Empire defending the United Kingdom.

warspite1

Not to forget the other nationalities, of which the Polish and Czech contribution stands out.

The end credits for the Battle of Britain contains as fine piece of music as you will find anywhere in cinema history. Kleenex at the ready....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLDZkypBHnw

Repeat Please.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1pplBZu0oU

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Skyros

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: JeffK



In the 1958 movie, the room where Ramsay runs the operation from is the actual room used IRL.
This rates as one of the best war movies made, with a few small mistakes the equipment used is from the right period (prolly still first line gear fro the British Army at that point), despite a few chances for "German atrocities, ie wounded left behind, this doesnt happen. I would assume that the British Army provided troops for the beach scenes, it really looks like there are thousands on the beach.

As for the BoB movie, they couldnt make it better now. Not mentioned is the closing "credits" listing the Nationalities of the Allied pilots who died, truly the Empire defending the United Kingdom.

warspite1

Not to forget the other nationalities, of which the Polish and Czech contribution stands out.

The end credits for the Battle of Britain contains as fine piece of music as you will find anywhere in cinema history. Kleenex at the ready....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLDZkypBHnw

Repeat Please.

warspite1

Sure.

Not to forget the other nationalities, of which the Polish and Czech contribution stands out.

The end credits for the Battle of Britain contains as fine piece of music as you will find anywhere in cinema history. Kleenex at the ready....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLDZkypBHnw

[:D]

[Skyros]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Skyros

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

Not to forget the other nationalities, of which the Polish and Czech contribution stands out.

The end credits for the Battle of Britain contains as fine piece of music as you will find anywhere in cinema history. Kleenex at the ready....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLDZkypBHnw

Repeat Please.

warspite1

Sure.

Not to forget the other nationalities, of which the Polish and Czech contribution stands out.

The end credits for the Battle of Britain contains as fine piece of music as you will find anywhere in cinema history. Kleenex at the ready....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLDZkypBHnw

[:D]

To quote the squadron leader: "Silence in Polish"

[Chickenboy]

warspite1

Not to forget the other nationalities, of which the Polish and Czech contribution stands out.

To me, the nationality that most stands out is the Australian contingent. 21 participants with 14 fatalities? That's a pretty high ratio. Vagaries of war, training, unit issues, being outnumbered, what? [:(]

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

warspite1

Not to forget the other nationalities, of which the Polish and Czech contribution stands out.

To me, the nationality that most stands out is the Australian contingent. 21 participants with 14 fatalities? That's a pretty high ratio. Vagaries of war, training, unit issues, being outnumbered, what? [:(]

Maybe they were in Wirraways ...
I think a lot depended on where your squadron was situated. The Aussies might have been near the south coast where Me109s could reach and dogfight.
There wasn't much time for training either, so the quality of training may have played a part.

[spence]

It appears that the Australians were all pilots within the RAF: that is none served in RAAF squadrons. It would therefore seem that they flew the same sorts of aircraft as flown by regular RAF pilots: mostly Spitfires and Hurricanes. I would imagine that training played a part in why their casualties were so high since they had completed their initial training in Australia, presumably on such hot platforms as Wirraways. I might add that checking a number of websites it seems that the actual number of Australian participants in the Battle of Britain is the subject of some dispute: it seems that 10 Australian fighter pilots may have been KIA and that the others of the "14" were actually bomber crew attacking the German landing barges/channel ports.

An interesting website:

ttp://www.battleofbritainmemorial.org/squadro ... f-britain/

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

warspite1

Not to forget the other nationalities, of which the Polish and Czech contribution stands out.

To me, the nationality that most stands out is the Australian contingent. 21 participants with 14 fatalities? That's a pretty high ratio. Vagaries of war, training, unit issues, being outnumbered, what? [:(]

warspite1

Simply put it seems that no one knows the actual number of Australians that took part in the battle. Why the confusion?

– Aussies were scattered amongst RAF Squadrons (the first RAAF squadrons did not appear in the UK until 1941).
- 'Australian citizens' did not exist until 1949. Passports designated those born in Australia as British subjects.
- There is also the added problem of what constituted an Australian as opposed to, for example, a Briton born here and sent to Australia or an Australian born of British parents who considered themselves British. With nothing on any official document to say otherwise I guess its not difficult to see where the confusion arises.
- Recent research shows one Australian was in fact Irish!

So how many?

The official historian for the RAAF’s activities states “some 30 Australians” served in fighter command, a figure used by Stephen Bungay in his excellent The most Dangerous Enemy.

The lowest figure appears to be 21 (taken from research in 1955 by an RAF officer who checked up on those who received the clasp to the 1939-45 medal to show service with fighter command that summer). At the other end of the scale 37 appears to be the highest number suggested. Other websites contain numbers in between.

And all that is before even starting to work out the casualty numbers! [X(]

[MakeeLearn]

"Of the total of 537 RAF Fighter Command pilots who died at least ten were Australian. Another four who were enlisted in the Royal Australian Air Force also died. Twenty-five Australians were considered eligible for the Battle of Britain. Others flew during the battle with RAF Bomber Command and Coastal Command but the total number involved in the battle did not exceed 35. Eight Australians became air aces by shooting down five or more enemy aircraft. In total about 100 Australians helped Britain."


In the Monty Python Squadron some Australians were used as tail-gunners.

[JeffroK]

As to the training of Australian pilots, many went to the UK and served pre-war in the RAF and would have received the same training. This excellent pre-war scheme provided the RAF with a group that formed a solid core of its wartime leaders.

[JeffroK]

From https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/blog/ba ... ain?search

The vast majority of men and women who participated in the Battle of Britain were Britons themselves, but members from the other Allied countries made significant contributions to the aerial victory over the Luftwaffe. Pilots from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India, South Africa, Rhodesia, Jamaica, and the British Mandate of Palestine all flew aerial operations during the battle, as did French, Belgian, and Czechoslovakian aircrew. Volunteers from the United States comprised three Eagle Squadrons attached to Fighter Command, and Poland contributed pilots and aircrew for three whole squadrons. The Hurricane pilots of No. 303 (Kosciuszko) Squadron RAF claimed no less than 126 aerial victories over German aircraft during the three-month campaign. Having lost their own country to the German invaders, Polish pilots were renowned for their daring in fighting for Britain, which they called "last hope island". A saying at the time went: "If you want a short life and a glorious death, fly with a Polish airman."

Australia too can be proud that it contributed to the defence of Britain in that crucial summer and autumn, flying operations with Fighter Command, Bomber Command, and Coastal Command. One Australian who flew in Fighter Command during the battle was Flight Lieutenant Pat Hughes of Cooma, New South Wales, who had at least fifteen and half credited kills to his tally and was among the top ten leading aces of the time. Like many of the Australians who flew during the Battle of Britain, Hughes had been a pre-war member of the Royal Australian Air Force, but had transferred to the Royal Air Force under the Short Service Commission Scheme in 1937. He was attached to No. 234 Squadron RAF and flew air cover operations in Spitfires over airfields in Plymouth, and later conducted long distance missions in the Atlantic Ocean and over the Mediterranean Sea. On 15 August 1940, Pat Hughes claimed a double victory of two Messerschmitt Bf110 heavy fighters which earned him the Distinguished Flying Cross. He was killed less than three weeks later, on 7 September 1940, intercepting a large formation of Dornier bombers and their escort of Messerschmitt fighters over Kent.

Thirty-five Australians flew combat operations during the Battle of Britain, of whom ten were killed in action. They were among the airmen immortalised by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in his powerful tribute to the men of Fighter Command: "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."

Also https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/encyclo ... ain?search

Twenty-five Australians were considered eligible for the Battle of Britain clasp to the 1939–45 Star. Others flew during the battle with RAF Bomber Command and Coastal Command but the total number involved in the battle did not exceed 35. Eight Australians became air aces by shooting down five or more enemy aircraft. Pat Hughes from Cooma had 14 successes, which puts him among the ten leading aces of the battle.

Of the total of 537 RAF Fighter Command pilots who died at least ten were Australian. Another four who were enlisted in the Royal Australian Air Force also died.

[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.

There were enough Czech tanks to equip ~two German Panzer divisions at the time of the 'Battle of France' (May 10, 1940). 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]

[patrickl]

I went to see the movie Dunkirk this morning. I must say it is a very good movie. I cried abit. [&o][&o]

[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

[wdolson]

Hans von Luck had been commander of Rommel's recon unit during the invasion of France and was later a commanded of recon forces in North Africa. When Rommel was put in charge of the Normandy defenses he made von Luck one of the regional commanders who happened to be responsible for Normandy. Because there was so much need for armor in Russia, there was very little available for the defense in France. von Luck had a brilliant engineering officer who scoured France and found the chassis of a number of French tanks that were under construction when France fell and had just been left to collect dust. He got a number of them operational and turned them into tank destroyers. Those were the French made vehicle chassis that engaged the Allies in Normandy. Attrition pretty much consumed them in the Normandy campaign.

Hans von Luck wrote a book after the war. I found it quite interesting.

Bill