Tom Hanks' new convoy war movie: Greyhound - Page 12

DJS4000 · 07-17-20, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Levyathan89

Did u-boats even have the technology to "call" other ships like they do in that movie? Because normally, sending sending radio messages meant sending mesages in morse code as far as I know.

good question. i had to dig through my stuff to verify it, but yes! you are correct. type vii boats used a Telefunken S 406 S/36 transmitter (plus a low powered Lorenz 40K39d as a backup) which could only transmit in the so called "A1" and "A2" modes - which is morse code. no voice.

IIRC voice comms were only possible from the type XXI onwards.

Cpt.Spoke · 07-19-20, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJS4000

ok gents, i just watched it.

it's...ok. if you have no idea about submarine warfare and tactics i gues it's a competent WW2 action flick. everyone else will facepalm pretty hard, pretty often. it also has impressive visuals.

to summarize the movie in one sentence:

if you ever wanted to watch a type vii boat engage in a surface gun duel with a fletcher class DD and a flower class at the same time at literal point blank range - this movie is for you.

-SPOILERS BELOW THIS POINT-

and many more that i already forgot. anyway. you can get a quick uboat fix in, but nothing more. i enjoyed it...a bit

"they would taunt enemy DD captains via radio. in english. ending each message with literal wolf howling."

Hahaha, i thought that was really odd too

mapuc · 07-21-20, 05:06 PM

I recall an episode from my history channel.

There was a series about combat ship(I think it was) they had some episode where they looked into the German, English and American subs, in this episode they looked at the sailor.

From memory

When a sailor asked for a transfer to another sub/area, the first he looked at was if the commander had "won" the Iron Cross.
A commander who had "won" an Iron cross was very popular among the sailors, because a commander who had was not so aggressive.

While a sub commander who hadn't could be very aggressive in his attack against convoys.

Markus

Aktungbby · 07-21-20, 05:11 PM

Cpt.Spoke!

after bit of a silent run...

CommissarStarfish · 07-22-20, 05:11 PM

At the end of the day, it's a movie. Subs are close to all of our hearts, but for movies everyone needs to suspend their disbelief and just enjoy it. Personally, I find the flaws to be in the writing; Hanks' character was paper thin and unrelatable. But to call it a piece of garbage and unwatchable for a little bit of Hollywood embellishment is an overreaction.

DJS4000 · 07-29-20, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CommissarStarfish

At the end of the day, it's a movie. Subs are close to all of our hearts, but for movies everyone needs to suspend their disbelief and just enjoy it. Personally, I find the flaws to be in the writing; Hanks' character was paper thin and unrelatable. But to call it a piece of garbage and unwatchable for a little bit of Hollywood embellishment is an overreaction.

oh it's definitely not "unwatchable". but i think it's ok to criticize the movie based on the very particular knowledge that we here possess

another thing that came to mind: the trailers spoiled the "kicker" at the end - that this is Hanks' first atlantic crossing as a DD skipper. the way this information is presented is supposed to surprise you when he gets relieved.

i hate it when they do that.

JgzMan · 07-30-20, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

If I were a millionaire, I'd love to make a naval movie the old school way, with the miniature models and giant pool (See Toho). I hate the over use of CGI.

If I were richer then Midas, I'd want to make a naval movie the way they made at least one military movie, and just rent some battleships.

mrb__ · 08-03-20, 02:15 PM

03:00
Isn’t that a satellite dish?

Subnuts · 08-03-20, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrb__

03:00
Isn’t that a satellite dish?

Looks like a Mk 19 fire control radar to me. Bofors mounts started receiving them by the end of the war, so showing them, along with quadruple mounts on a DD in 1942, is obviously anachronistic. Looks like the filmmakers just left the radars on and prayed none of us nerds noticed.

Randomizer · 08-12-20, 02:20 PM

Some Naval Historians eviscerate the movies' lack of historicity:

I re-read the book and it would seem that, according to one of the reviewers, the film bears little resemblance to CS Forrester's novella.

It's sad that even when Hollywood can get the history right, they inevitably choose not to bother. Think that I will give Greyhound a miss.

-C

Bilge_Rat · 08-24-20, 11:42 AM

So finally got to see the movie over the weekend and I really liked it. It's not as good as "The Cruel Sea" or "Das Boot", but not as bad as "U-571".

The action is over the top, but the interior scenes, the interplay and dialogue between the crew is well done and mr. Hanks as usual, does a very good job as the skipper.

Note that the film was filmed mostly on the USS Kidd museum ship. It's a Fletcher class DD still in its august 1945 config which would explain some of the minor errors.

Note that the budget for this kind of film is limited and it only got made because Tom Hanks wrote the script, pushed to get it made and agreed to star in it. Personally, I would rather have this kind of WW2 naval warfare film that none at all.

Aktungbby · 08-24-20, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2682803&postcount=3253

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Note that the budget for this kind of film is limited and it only got made because Tom Hanks wrote the script, pushed to get it made and agreed to star in it. Personally, I would rather have this kind of WW2 naval warfare film that none at all.

They perhaps should have titled it: In Hank's Way

Randomizer · 08-24-20, 01:39 PM

Quote:

I would rather have this kind of WW2 naval warfare film that none at all.

I am just the opposite, better nothing at all than crap. Greyhound is up there with U-571 and Pearl Harbor for cringe-worthy Hollywood entertainment excrement.

-C

Onkel Neal · 09-07-20, 09:34 AM

Since AppleTV won't work on my 2020 Sony TV, I went ahead and signed up using the free trial and watched Greyhound on my PC. It would have been far more rewarding on the big screen or my 85" TV, but I just finished reading The Good Shepard and I wanted to see how they compare.

The book: very good, virtually a manual on sub hunting and detection. The protagonist Captain Krause is a 1950's man, tough and all business. He has doubts and uncertainty but he keeps them to himself. The book does a good job of illustrating how every second matters, how the captain is responsible for not only his ship but the whole convoy and the lives of the men on the other 40 or so ships. Krause has some reflections on his failed marriage but is not a bitter, hard-drinking crybaby trope. He has his duty and that's what matters. He's a man like men used to be. He sustains his watch for over 50 hours, making numerous decisions that prove crucial for the mission of getting the convoy across the Mid-Atlantic gap. I highly recommend this book.

The film follows the tone and structure of the book closely. It begins and within 3 minutes the action starts. A wolfpack is detected on radar and with his limited resources Captain Krause has to decide which contacts to pursue and how much of the convoy to leave unprotected. Tom Hanks plays Krause with very little surface emotion but is successful in convey some of the neophyte convoy leader's underlying emotions. Tom Hanks, ladies and gentlemen. I found the subtextual gay undercurrent between the captain and the sassy mess steward interesting. Few of the other characters are more than faces, cogs in the machine which makes perfect sense in the context of this film.

The U-boats behave realistically. They come to the surface when out of view of the convoy to take advantage of their superior surface speed and maneuverability. The scene in the trailer where the U-boat is slugging it out on the surface is valid, for reasons the movie suggests. There's a bit of Hollywood in some scenes, such as the outsized conning tower logos and seeing four U-boats surface within 100m of each other, done no doubt for dramatic effect. And possibly some scenes were constructed to have the U-boats and convoy appear in the same shots. I found not having lookouts on the bridge odd.

Overall the elements of U-boat warfare of accurate and engrossing. Uncertain radar pips, technical issues, sonar limitations, pillenwerfers, confusion, friendly fire, and simply the physical aspects of escorts, merchants, and U-boats are all very satisfyingly portrayed.

One glaring exception is the intercepted radio transmissions the Greyhound picks up from a taunting U-boat commander. Now sure, there may have been some insane U-boat captains who would use the radio to give away their position solely to taunt the enemy but to howl like a wolf? That's cartoon crazy but fits in with 2020 movie audiences, so ok, whatever.

The movie is structured a lot like the Mad Max movie Fury Road, relentless, hurtling forward. The sound effects and scoring underpin the action. There's a special U-boat sound that seems evil and dastardly every time a boat appears thrusting through the waves.

I would definitely recommend seeing Greyhound, if you can get Apple TV to cooperate with your large screen TV, it's a tense and exciting movie that mostly gets the details spot on.

********************

U-boat between burning ship and Tom Hanks

U-boat on the surface really close to enemy ships

Desperate grey wolf in a fight with an escort

bobdoane · 09-08-20, 10:23 PM

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.

07-21-20, 05:11 PM	#169
Aktungbby Gefallen Engel U-666 Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: On a tilted, overheated, overpopulated spinning mudball on Collision course with Andromeda Galaxy Posts: 29,979 Downloads: 24 Uploads: 0	Welcome aboard! Cpt.Spoke! after bit of a silent run... __________________ "Only two things are infinite; The Universe and human squirrelyness?!! Last edited by Aktungbby; 07-22-20 at 07:48 PM.

08-24-20, 11:42 AM	#176
Bilge_Rat Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: standing watch... Posts: 3,855 Downloads: 344 Uploads: 0	So finally got to see the movie over the weekend and I really liked it. It's not as good as "The Cruel Sea" or "Das Boot", but not as bad as "U-571". The action is over the top, but the interior scenes, the interplay and dialogue between the crew is well done and mr. Hanks as usual, does a very good job as the skipper. Note that the film was filmed mostly on the USS Kidd museum ship. It's a Fletcher class DD still in its august 1945 config which would explain some of the minor errors. Note that the budget for this kind of film is limited and it only got made because Tom Hanks wrote the script, pushed to get it made and agreed to star in it. Personally, I would rather have this kind of WW2 naval warfare film that none at all. __________________

09-08-20, 10:23 PM	#180
bobdoane Nub Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2 Downloads: 23 Uploads: 0	Thank you, Onkel Neal! 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.

07-21-20, 05:06 PM	#168
mapuc CINC Pacific Fleet Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Denmark Posts: 20,535 Downloads: 37 Uploads: 0	I recall an episode from my history channel. There was a series about combat ship(I think it was) they had some episode where they looked into the German, English and American subs, in this episode they looked at the sailor. From memory When a sailor asked for a transfer to another sub/area, the first he looked at was if the commander had "won" the Iron Cross. A commander who had "won" an Iron cross was very popular among the sailors, because a commander who had was not so aggressive. While a sub commander who hadn't could be very aggressive in his attack against convoys. Markus

07-22-20, 05:11 PM	#170
CommissarStarfish Swabbie Join Date: Jul 2020 Location: canada Posts: 7 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	At the end of the day, it's a movie. Subs are close to all of our hearts, but for movies everyone needs to suspend their disbelief and just enjoy it. Personally, I find the flaws to be in the writing; Hanks' character was paper thin and unrelatable. But to call it a piece of garbage and unwatchable for a little bit of Hollywood embellishment is an overreaction.

08-03-20, 02:15 PM	#173
mrb__ Nub Join Date: Apr 2020 Posts: 3 Downloads: 12 Uploads: 0	03:00 Isn’t that a satellite dish?

08-12-20, 02:20 PM	#175
Randomizer Weps Join Date: Mar 2019 Location: Vancouver Island Posts: 366 Downloads: 138 Uploads: 0	Some Naval Historians eviscerate the movies' lack of historicity: I re-read the book and it would seem that, according to one of the reviewers, the film bears little resemblance to CS Forrester's novella. It's sad that even when Hollywood can get the history right, they inevitably choose not to bother. Think that I will give Greyhound a miss. -C