Most Accurate War Film

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 04-13-2007, 08:24 AM

I think my fav has to be Das Boot. It was a very well done move and about as accurate as you get I believe atleast when it comes to Sub movies but then again I have never been stationed on a sub.

MacArther · 04-13-2007, 11:45 AM

Anyone heard of the new movie "Little Iron Men"? Its about Japanese Americans in the the Battle of the Bulge. Just from the previews, it looks like an awsome movie, in the same range as Saints and Soldiers.

timshatz · 04-13-2007, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I think my fav has to be Das Boot. It was a very well done move and about as accurate as you get I believe atleast when it comes to Sub movies but then again I have never been stationed on a sub.

With all due respect to the Bubbleheads out there, you gotta be nutz to go into subs during wartime. Short of the Kamikaze Service, the Silent Service had the highest casualty rate of any service. For the Germans, it was something like 75% (29k/39K, depending on your sources, some go with 30K/36K). But even for the winning side it was the most dangerous assignment. The US Navy's Submariners had a 22% fatality rate.

No way man, not me. Even when I was young and crazy, I wasn't THAT crazy.

comiso90 · 04-13-2007, 01:24 PM

I think I could handle sub duty except for the "Hot Swaping" bunks.

Bring on the solitude, depth charges, isolation, and creeking hull but I'm not sure I could end a 12 hour shift by jumping into a bed some stanky dude just crawled out of.

renrich · 04-13-2007, 01:27 PM

Comis, I agree with you.

timshatz · 04-13-2007, 02:18 PM

Hats off to you guys. Never dug anything to do with Subs. The sub types were always going on about how the subs were the greatest arm of the fleet ("There are only two types of vessels on the ocean, Subs and Targets") but they can have it.

How do you abandon ship at a depth of 500 ft?

T4.H · 04-13-2007, 02:39 PM

I think, "Das Boot" is perhaps one of the most accurate war films of all time. Of course with two exceptions. The inside colour of the german submarines was not dark-grey, it was white. And of course, as I know, the germans stopped the use of rivets for the construction of there submarines even before WWI.
Both facts were well known. It was good for the dramaturgy.

I prefer the director's cut version with 208 minutes. The TV version is with 5 hours too long. And I will never forget the cool sound at the beginning, when the bow of U96 appears through the unclear water.

What do you think about "Tora! Tora! Tora!"? I think, this film is as accurate as possible.

Hey, this was my first post!!!

comiso90 · 04-13-2007, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T4.H

The inside colour of the german submarines was not dark-grey, it was white. And of course, as I know, the germans stopped the use of rivets for the construction of there submarines even before WWI.
What do you think about "Tora! Tora! Tora!"? I Think, this film is as accurate as possible.

Hey, this was my first post!!!

Great points... fun trivia, thanks!

Tora, Tora Tora in my opinion was one of the very few films that were made with a consciousness effort to portray combatants in a fair light. It beautifully melded fact with drama... so few studios can be bothered with "facts".

I am always annoyed by the AT-6’s posing as Zeros but they couldn’t help that.

Welcome to the Forum!

T4.H · 04-13-2007, 02:53 PM

Thanks!

I forgot "Letters From Iwo Jima".

timshatz · 04-13-2007, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T4.H

What do you think about "Tora! Tora! Tora!"?

Hey, this was my first post!!!

I think Tora, Tora, Tora was actually shot as two movies. One side was shot in the US and the other shot in Japan, telling both side's perspectives. Then they were blended together.

As far as accuracy is concerned, it is pretty much the story as most people know it.

timshatz · 04-13-2007, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T4.H

Hey, this was my first post!!!

Congrats! Good first post.

Soundbreaker Welch? · 04-13-2007, 03:31 PM

There were so many funny little films made during WWII.

One of them was "Thunder Birds, 1942" which I watched this year. No combat, just a movie about training pilots for the War in Boeing Stearmans. It takes place at Thunder Bird Airfield in Arizona. The plane footage is pretty exciting with no special effect squadrons, since there was no lack of real planes to fly in those war day films. And it's in color, so the blue and yellow paint schemes are not missed like in a B/W.

Just the storyline and characters are funny. You got a fat old rancher, Gene Autry music, a cowgirl, an aging Pilot instructer, called Steve, An English Ladystackouse and her son Peter Stackhouse, chirpy British Cadets getting used to America, Chinese cadets with little to do, nurses, gruff Commanders of the Airfield, no Kraut or Jap in sight, Fourth of July cookout, duststorms, England, Arizona, Richard Bong cameo, and all put together in a confusing mix. You never really get anyplace but the final effect actually feels lifelike. Everbody pawns in the big picture of WWII.

Have to give those filmmakers credit for optimism though. All they wanted, like many other filmmakers, was to get young people gung-ho about the war and enlist in the armed forces.

And movies like that served that purpose admirably, perhaps as the picture below shows.

Who knows if a little film like "Thunderbirds" helped to inspire people to fly in Boeing Stearmans, more than hatred or a desire to kill Japs? For the young woman at least, a beautiful plane might be more persuasive on her patriotic emotions than just plain revenge.

As for the Pilot, training an attractive girl to fly isn't the worse job in the world either, and he's serving his country, even if it isn't combat or becoming an ace.

But that time is long gone. Audiences no longer need inspirational, upbeat films about WWII. Whats the point? What we want is history, accuracy, and technicality, with a unsettling, mental drama thrown in with gore. The end result is war movies that now strive for harsh realism or fail as flops. They outdo many of those WWII 40's and 50's films in a big way, even with the limitations of screen as Adler said.

Anyway, anybody know of an accurate WWII movie that features American Aircraft like the P-38, P-47, P-51, and not Spitfires?

Don't get me wrong, I love Spitfires. But I think they have a better following than say the P-47 in recent films. Aside from the old film "Fighter Squadron," which I can't find anywhere, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of the Jug.

And the Memphis Belle is about it for P-51's?

And the P-38 is never found.

But at least the Corsairs get a role in "Flags of our Fathers." It felt you were flying the plane, just like in a video game.

renrich · 04-13-2007, 05:18 PM

A war film that was mentioned here early on that I thought was well done was "Sahara" with Bogey. I enjoyed seeing the Grant or Lee tank. I don't believe I ever saw a tank of that model in another film.

comiso90 · 04-13-2007, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renrich

A war film that was mentioned here early on that I thought was well done was "Sahara" with Bogey. I enjoyed seeing the Grant or Lee tank. I don't believe I ever saw a tank of that model in another film.

Great movie... although I never considered it a "War" film. For me it's more a human drama in a war setting.

Njaco · 04-13-2007, 08:21 PM

Funny you should mention "Sahara" after Soundbreaker Welch? asked about films with planes. The German plane in "Sahara" was a P-51 - a "B" I believe.

I always loved the cockpits shots with the 20 inch guns on the cowling and how the tank hit it with one shot and burst of MG fire. Awesome deflection shot!

Scenes from "Tora, Tora, Tora" were used for numerous other movies about the war including "Midway". How many different planes did they have on that island?