[bobdoane]

I agree with Onkel Neal’s review of “Greyhound” as a piece of very entertaining fiction. It was a very good movie. However, I would like to point out some inaccuracies/inconsistencies that mildly disturbed me while watching.
1). Fletcher class destroyers did serve in the Atlantic albeit in very small numbers. But very few did convoy duty. They basically served as fleet/heavy warship escorts. The probable ship referenced in C. S. Forester’s excellent book would be a smaller DD, such as a Bagley or Gleaves class ship.
2). The “Greyhound” (as depicted) was armed with quad mount 40 mm Oerlikon aa guns athwart the after funnel. These mounts were added specifically to combat the kamikaze threat in the Pacific and did not appear until the late summer or early fall of 1944. However, the time frame for the book and the movie appears to be late 1942 to early 1943 (obvious winter weather). By late 1943 there were far more escorts, including D. E.s and escort carriers, and the u-boat menace was waning. Many historians state that the u-boat war had been won by late’43 (I’m not sure I agree, but it was far more dangerous to be a u-boat sailor by then). This is an anachronism and since the ship is a CGI construct really should have been caught and corrected.
3). Early in the film Krause orders a speed of 30 knots, which is very unlikely given the sea state depicted. The ship’s screws would have spent 20 to 30% of their time out of the water. This is almost excusable but then when he wants to begin the sonar search, he orders a speed of 22 knots. Even if the sea state had been calm, this would have been way too fast to get reliable return echoes on the sonar sets of the time. The best probable speed would be about 12 knots.
These glitches did not invalidate a very good film but it does mean the “details” weren’t quite there. I noticed some other questionable items, such as the German torpedo grazing the side (bilge keel?) of the ship without exploding. But I’m not an expert on the “touchiness” of German torpedo exploders.
My opinion is that the flaws of this film should have been caught by a competent technical/historical adviser. But the film is no less entertaining because of them. In actuality, I feel there were far fewer technical/historical issues than most other “great” Hollywood war films I have seen and as an amateur historian, I’ve seen most of them.
By the way, Forester spent quite a bit of time on U. S. and U. K. ships (merchant and warships) during the war doing research for his writing. His writing has always been very highly critically acclaimed and was especially popular right after the war. “The Good Shepherd” was serialized in “Life” magazine in the early ‘50s I think, but I’m not sure exactly when.
Thanks very much for the review.