I'll bite.

U-571...

I think Heathrow Harry (#19) has the right of it.

There was no "silver bullet". The Third Reich collapsed under the combined weight of all the force which the Allies had brought to bear over the years.

As I've said somewhere: "if our generation did nothing else, it put that monster down under the crossroads with a stake through its heart".

There was nothing special about us, we were just the ones on duty when the job came up. You, our grandchildren, would do just as well if something like it came along again (and yet might)......God forbid !

Danny.

Thank you. Saintsman. There are a lot of people on here who seem to suffer collective amnesia when they get on a collective slagging-off spree even though they know full well what I was referring to as it has frequently attracted lengthy posts from my point of view in the past.
The less pleasant side of internet herd-bullying behaviour.

The late David Balme, who took the Enigma and code books off U-110, gave an evening lecture at the Yacht Club of which he was a Member and I was Secretary. At the end he, with permission showed a trailer of the then soon to be released "U-571", with the addition of the postscript that he had requested the producers to include, to the effect that the movie was a work of fiction, based on the exploits of the then Sub Lt Balme and the crew of his ship.

sandiego, the key phrase is "complete rewrite of history". The film U-571 was one such, I quote from Wiki:

German submarine U-571 was a Type VIIC U-boat built for the Nazi Germany's Kriegsmarine for service during World War II. U-571 conducted eleven war patrols, sinking seven ships totalling 47,169 gross register tons (GRT), and damaging one other, which displaced 11,394 tons. On 28 January 1944 she was attacked by an Australian-crewed Sunderland aircraft from No. 461 Squadron RAAF west of Ireland and was destroyed by depth charges. All hands were lost.
The fictional 2000 U.S. war film U-571 has no relation to this U-boat, but is very loosely based on the British capture of U-110 and her Enigma and cipher keys.

That is the sort of film that gets many others a bad name. There are of course many other films that are not fiction. Perhaps the best Allied film was The Longest Day. Other single nation films like Battle of the Bulge, Bridge at Remagen, Patton attracted no such criticism.

Of modern films I happened across The Fury the other day. A remarkable film featuring little, if any, music, and excellent CGI. Seeing the effect of an AP round hitting a tank and heating the armour to white hot was amazing and none of the usual Hollywood slow explosions.

One film that always agitated my father, who was a pilot on the Dakota Force on 194 Sqn in 1944 at places such as Kohima and Imphal, was ‘Objective Burma’ starring Errol Flynn. My Father always referred to it as ‘Errol Flynn winning the war in Burma single handedly’.

To quote Wikipedia:
Even though it was based on the exploits of Merrill's Marauders, Objective Burma was withdrawn from release in the United Kingdom after it infuriated British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and drew protests about the Americanization of an almost entirely British, Indian and Commonwealth conflict. An editorial in The Times said:
It is essential both for the enemy and the Allies to understand how it came about that the war was won ... nations should know and appreciate the efforts other countries than their own made to the common cause.

I wonder what Danny 42 thinks of ‘Objective Burma’ having also been there and was he as bothered as Churchill and others?

Don't forget what I consider the most fictitious military film of all times, "Top Gun". The movie was, and continues to be, a huge hit. I had the great honor to have graduated twice from Fighter Weapons School ("Top Gun" is simply the squadron call sign); once when flying the F-8 Crusader and later on when flying the F-14 Tomcat. Thrilling though some of the scenes may be, there is nearly nothing authentic about the film, especially the behavior of the main characters.

It's a shame really, because filming the actual truth might have made an even better movie from a civilian point of view. From the point of view of someone who was there, "Top Gun" is cringe worthy and even embarrassing.

Good ripping yarn - it's a movie, not a documentary. As mentioned, there was an acknowledgement of the actual events. It deservedly won awards for its sound - which was superb.
I'm ex-kipper fleet, btw - as was my Dad who was based in Iceland during the Battle of the Atlantic.

cynicalint,

Remember it well, my reaction was exactly the same as that of your Father. The distortion of the facts was so extreme as to be ridiculous.

Glad to hear of Churchill's objections, think it was only after I came back in '46 that I saw it in the UK. Wiki tells me that it was originally released in January, 1945, when I was in Burma with a war that still had another seven months to run.

Danny42C.

As one who's been interested in the strategic air offensive against Germany for many years I find it rather sad that discussions of it often degenerate into slagging off the contributions of one side or another. Remember that the bomber crews were all volunteers fighting a type of warfare that had never been tried before and tactics had to be made up as they went along. I for one look forward to "Masters of the Air" or whatever it will be called and hope it is as good as "Band of Brothers".
I have read that RAF Bomber Command had the second highest proportion of casualties of any force in WW2 and the US 8th AF was not far behind. The "honour" of having the highest proportion of casualties in WW2 belongs to the German U-Boat Fleet.

Polecat

So it would seem:
https://www.thevintagenews.com/2015/...illion-budget/

Some posters anger is misplaced. Don't blame the American film industry in Hollywood for making films about their forces exploits and contributions instead wonder why we cannot make anything which shows our deeds in warfare in this country. The modern British ( 80s onwards ) film makers show no inclination to show our young men and women in a good light in any conflict in the 20th or 21st C.
They might ask one of these people if they ever come across one of them 'why not ? All films seem to be about the multi culti world they inhabit in London or dubious 'romances or comedies ' ( I use these terms in the vaguest sense). Mostly god awful tripe with no appeal to the rest of us.
Hollywood understands that the Patriotic USA wants films about their people in war, the luvvies over here don't.

Which is why I much prefer the products of an earlier age such as The Cruel Sea, Ice Cold in Alex, Dunkirk, and many more.

HH,

Was that the same VVSO who agreed with your comments about a certain Allied tank? Do tell!

Why not? It is the 21st Century...and sex sells. :E

It's almost as if Hollywood films are targeted at a wide cross-section of society and are simplified and popularized to gain the largest share of box-office profits possible. Sometimes I suspect that these movies are not aimed at discerning war-historians like us at all!

Did somebody call?

Master Aircrew Ping (Retd.)

Herod, don't forget the P-51 was as much British as it was USA. Developed to fill a Brit requirement and paid for with Brit cold hard cash. The name "Mustang" was even a Brit bestowal. Initially the US had very little interest in the aircraft, the two aircraft given to the US languished on the USAAF test flight line.

Yes, Hollywood makes films that their audiences wish to see to make money.

As TTN says, we older citizens like the gritty war films from the 50s and 60s. In Hollywood's rush to the cash they still produce turkeys and dross - Pearl Harbour.

There's a reasonable amount of evidence to suggest that the decision to put a Merlin engine into the P-51 actually happened at the AFDU at the then RAF Duxford