Why was U-571 so crap!

Have you seen the film U-571? Terrible, just terrible I tell you!

 

Actually I didn't, Gott sei Dank! A few of my friends went and told me how terrible it was so I decided not to go, even though I usually don't miss up on a war movie. I even went to see Thin Red Line, which seemed to be more a sort of documentary on the plant- and wildlife of the tropics....

 

My reply..

I do know many how were in the KM, with a few who were also on DDs then went to uboats. In fact, my best friend in Germany, who is a DKG recipient, served on both Destroyers and Uboats--uboat under the Kapitans Luth, and Freiwald. This man was decorated by Kapitan Dommes in Singapore 1945.

I do know HIS service record and what he has told me. I know that at least his destroyed had in fact sailed through the Atlantic as an escourt to some other larger ship. True, this would have been in I think 1941 or 42, I dont remember which. My point is is that Destroyers were acting as escourts to other ships in the Kriegsmarine. Ths same goes for Destroyers from many other Navies. SO the prospect of a Destroyer being in the mid Atlantic is not hard to believe.

I never said theat the Gustloff was wayyyy out in the Atlantic, I merely used its name as a reference. Sorry I cannot be more accurate, I have no access to all of my books as they are still in storage

My Opa, iwas a highly decorated merchant marine captain. He had been in battle on at least 3 occasions that I know of. Two were in the Atlantic, and one was in the Indian Ocean. The Atlantic actions were against a surface warship, the next was against a Uboat operating in a wolfpack of Uboats. The action in the Indian Ocean was against U 181.

I have read some of his letters talking about his experiances from 1942--to late 1944. He mentioned seeing a German surface warship on the first action that he was part of. I do not know if it was a Destroyer or a Cruiser. I do know it wasnt a Torpedoboot or something like that, it could habve been an armed Blockade Runner, or a Raider. Yes, those operated all over the seas and throuought the war. Dont ask me for particular names and dates as I dont know what thaey are and would hate to be telling you a lie.

All I can say is to read Otto Giese book, he tells about such things. By the way, he was a merchantman before becoming a uboat officer serving under Wolfgang luth and Kurt Friewald. German DDs did sail through the Atlantic as escourt ships. True, I dont know exact dates and most likely it was in the first 2 yrs of the war, but they did, sail the Atlantic.

I do totally agree with you that Hollywood des have many wierd ideas. I just wonder how screwed up the movie that they are supposed to be making about Erich Hartmann?? which is supposed to have Tom Cruise as E.H.

A DD COULD give some fuel. I had never said a DD would do that in reality. This whole argument is what COULD have been because of the scene in the movie.

 

It's always dangerous to trust a man's personal account of when something happened (especially when it's verbal). I know that from personal experience, don't ask me in which year I got my bike, please! I could probably guess, but there'd be margin of one or two years that would matter in WW2.

"Raiders", Hilfkreuzer, did of course operate all over the world and I think there were some around as late as 1943. However they wouldn't look like or be armed like a destroyer. For one thing they wouldn't have depth charges or any sort of ASW weaponry whatsoever.

I'm still not sure about any German DD ever crossing or actually finding itself in the middle of the Atlantic but will try to check on that. My position is still that they didn't have the range to do so, and no reason to do so either.

Ships to escort didn't really exist, and for raids other ships are far more suitable.

 

Andreas Seidel :

I even went to see Thin Red Line, which seemed to be more a sort of documentary on the plant- and wildlife of the tropics....

I WHOLE HEARTEDLY AGREE. THE LATEST VERSION OF JOYCES BOOK WAS CRAP.
I AM EXPECTING "WINDTALKERS" TO SUCK ALSO.
I'M JUST WAITING FOR "LORD OF THE RINGS", I ALREADY HAVE A BABYSITTER LINED UP FOR DECEMBER 19TH FOR MY SON

 

Hallo Andreas: You are correct about raiders, and most only carried one or two deck guns (Hidden) but as many as four. This is not including MGs.

Most of the ones seen in Ducumentaries--at least that I have seen and do have teped, show two deck guns. As for depth charges, I agree, I never heard of any carrying them.

As for my KM friends memory, I see no problem with it. He sent me his war service records sometime ago, I will see if I can find them and submit them here. Then mention his time as a Merchantman, serving on Destroyers, and his time with Kaptains Luth and Freiwald.

He was serving on destroyers from late 1939 to late 42, then was transferred to uboats. He was on uboats till the ending of the war. He was part of Luths crew when they claimed the uboat from the shipyard.

DDs did make long voyages, but how long, I dont know.

Take the Narvik, operation as an example. DDs were used as attack ships, for bombardment, troop ferrys and escourt ships and evauation ships. True they werent very successful, but they were there. Im citing this as only one example for lack of time.

PS, thin red line sucked big time.

 

An Erich Hartman movie, no way. Are you for real Carl? Please tell me about what you know about it.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by C.Evans:
He was serving on destroyers from late 1939 to late 42, then was transferred to uboats. He was on uboats till the ending of the war. He was part of Luths crew when they claimed the uboat from the shipyard.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
there is no doubt destroyers played an active role in the first half of the war...but the fact is that by the end of the war the missions a german destroyer safely carry out were small...i'm sure the German navy wouldn't just nonchalantly send out a destroyer into the deep atlantic at that stage...they wern't stupid.

DDs did make long voyages, but how long, I dont know.

Take the Narvik, operation as an example. DDs were used as attack ships, for bombardment, troop ferrys and escourt ships and evauation ships. True they werent very successful, but they were there. Im citing this as only one example for lack of time.

Well destroyers did play a support role in Narvik...but first off there were much more than just one...plus Navik was coastal AND allied air power was not as strong at that point making an operation like that possible.


I think the point people are trying to make is that sure MAYBE in the beginning of the war it was possible for a destroyer to have SOME KIND of mission in the atlantic...but at the time for this particular destroyer to be in the atlantic is plain too unrealistic even for chance. Almost like throwing away a perfectly good ship...heck at that time even the majority of u boat operations were pulled in closer to England.
And in my opinion if a some subs needed supplies they would use a supply sub or a bigger ship...for maybea destroyer could do alittle for one sub but not many.
Using a destroyer for searching makes no sense because that was the u-boats job...the split up till one of them found a convoy...then radioed the coordinates..then a wolfpack formed...there would be no need for a destroyer to this mission.
OH and as for the previos discussion about captured german ships...don't forget about possibly the most famous captured german surface ship...the "Prinze Eugene"
She was an escort to the Bismark in 1940 or 41 (i forgot) she was taken by the americans as a war prize and then taken to Bikini Insland part of the Marshal Islands...and there was sunk in the atomic tests there...along with other famous ships such as: Nagato, Nevada, Saratoga, and several other smaller ships from other navies...i'm sure some u-boats must have been there too.

 

For Pzgdr and Ron

Pz, Yup, thats what I read on some movie site about 2 months ago. The Blond Knight is supposed to be played by Tom Cruise.

Ron:

Actually Destroyer missions were large scale at the ending of the war. Doenitz mainly used them as escourt ships for the mass evacuation of civilians and Wehrmacht wounded. They were also to keep eyes peeled for Russian Subs.

To make my reply as short as possibel for lack of time today dealing with the Uboat War.

I wished you had access to the 5 volume book set publushed by a Verlag. It deals completely with all aspect of the Uboot War. You have almost everything you can imaging published in those 5 volumes that you could ask questions on and or think of. Unfortunately, the only Volume I have with me is Volume 4, my other 4 volumes are with a friend of mine at her home in Germany as she is doing major research on this subject herself.

BY any means of the imagination, were the Uboats operating for the most part--just near shore or near England. The vets I know from U 181 and U 191, can tell you VERY differently. These men operated at least from late 43 onward, mostly out of Singapore, along with several other Uboats.

Im hoping you are not offended with my disagreement, its just the truth. I can go into detail later if you wish.

 

AFAIK, it was Penang, not really Singapore, but could have been there too. It's got a good harbour anyway. Oh, I know about u-boats in the Gulf of Mexico, at Cape Horne and in the Indian Ocean but destroyers never operated anywhere more than 1000 nm from the German or German-occupied coast, I'm willing to bet on that. Norway is excluded.

At the end of the war, in the Baltic, of course there were destroyer operations. But certainly not in the Atlantic.

 

haha i don't mind you disagreeing carl! all in good fun!
Well i was only refering my answer to the question...if i implied the whole theaters of war i didn't...i was refering to a destroyer in the atlantic...
not in the far east (which was under the control of Japan)
and in the indian oceans and such.
Destroyers i did know were used a great deal in evacuation...but wasn't that shallower Seas closer to land? I don't doubt the fact that they were used for those operations.
My comments were aimed only at the placement of the destroyer in the movie, all alone, in the middle of the atlantic.
And my believe is that ...in this instance...that is to unrealistic.
i also feel that although later in the war not ALL u boats were brought in closer to home...i think it is fair to say that the majority were.

 

Good, I didnt want to have to hold my breath till my face turned red waiting for your answer.

The whold thing for me on this though is that, I dont remember that at anytime in the movie, that it was said that the destroyer was in the middle of the ocean.

I do definately agree that if it was, then it would be highly unprobable, that the KM destroyer would be out that far. I was mainly trying to figure out why so many people thought that the destroyer was far out from land--unles I missed something from the movie?? I now have the DVD for the movie, but have no way of playing it yet.

I guess maybe that the idea that it was in the middle of the Atlantic, might have come from something said about where the Uboats were to meet-during the talking sessions before they left on the mission?? In other words, did I WAYYYYYY misunderstand the meaning to the initial question?? It wouldnt be the first time--Grrrr....

 

ahhhhhhhhh looks like we're all cleared up now!
ohh and i'm glad i responded so quickly for your sake...holding your breath and all...it would be boring around here without your input.

 

heh heh heh, thanks, and to tell you the truth, I cant hold my breath very long anyway--so I guess my tantrum wouldnt work very well. So much for trying to become a Navy Seal. oh BROTHER, if I was able to become a Navy Seal, they would REALLY be scraping the wood off the bottom of the barrel

Sooner or later, I will get a DVD and watch the movie again, and I will pat particular attention to where they are going and or are supposed to go. Just to see if I can win this argument--arr arr arrk.

 

I've finally done it. I rented the video of U-571 and watched it. Let me say which parts I liked:

1) The American describing the maximum crush depth of 400 feet and the unbelievable miracle that he returned from down there. The following dive in the German (heavily damaged) boat to 1,5 times that depth.

2) The lieutenant's plan to lure the DD. It's pretty good, and would have worked.

What I didn't like:

The entire rest!!! The movie's SOOO ridiculous, it's almost so bad it's good again. The evil nazis, fanatical to the last, firing at civilians (happened ONCE during the entire war, the captain who ordered it was consequently avoided socially by almost all others), armed to the teeth (there was usually ONE pistol on board the boat, I was surprised there were no panzerfausts or Tigers on-board in the movie), have no chance against the courageous, heroical Americans, one after the other dying, giving his last breath to save the rest of the crew!!! My God, it really is so pathetic!!

And then a single-engine low-wing monoplane looking a bit like a high-altitude fighter appears somehow miles and miles west of England... no, really, folks.

And they don't get shot at ONCE by their own people, that surprised me. Normally, there would be British and American aircraft all over the place eager to blow up a German-looking sub. Or any sub for that matter. But no, they're only worried about "German planes" "German ships" and "German submarines". I also like the Hunt For Red October remake. Especially when some of those torps changed direction just after passing the sub. Yeah, right. And the 'sonar shadow' of the torp. Like torps had active sonar back then... sure...

These are just some of the main points, but I could go on for hours. Basically this is a sort of "Cold War Scenario" U-boat film. Basically it's a mixture of HFRO and Das Boot, and the mixture is grotesque.

The German destroyer itself wasn't a bad job. Well, for the 50s and 60s it wouldn't have been. Today we tend to want more realism. The 'fake' mixed elements from so many destroyers both German and American... terrible.... anyway, here's to the worst war movie this century!!

 

HAHA i hope no producers and such read that post! OUCH

 

Ha haaaa, I know your just waiting for "my" response, so here goes.

Ive already defended the KM about gunning survivors in the water, so I will not go there. BUT, I will add that only one Uboat Commander was executed (by the KM) for an atrocity.

Heres where we depart on what I agree with you Andreas.

Weapons on Uboats varied. There were in fact more than one pistol--usually it was the P-08 with a "6" inch barrel--A.K.A. the Navy Luger. This doesnt include Flare pistols.

Uboats also carried, MP-38/40s, Mauser Rifles, and MG-34s. True, I dont know the exact number of firearms, but they did carry them. They also had spring-loaded racks that had enough Stahlhelms, for each crewmember. (If you can find the site on U 534? you will see in the photos at what im talking about. This uboat was raised, and my friend Susanne, took many photos of it in England. (Im hoping I have the right Uboat number--I can check on it later if I remember). Anyway, her photos show the gunlocker and Stahlhelm racks.

Now, when I visited U 995, as many things were removed or blocked off and with many people touring through it, I did not notice a gunlocker, but most likely would be close to the Kapitans quarters. They did however, have a Stahlhelm rack with grey painted M-35's still in them--no KM decals of course

U 2540 the type XXI? in Bremerhaven, had a bit of room--tho not as much as the type VII-C, but could have had a decent sized storage locker for sidearms.

I have a KM press photo im still waiting on thats coming from a collection in Germany, that specifically shows a Uboat officer firing an MG=34 and three crewmen with mausers and one with an MP-38/40, trying to detonate seamines. If I ever recieve it, I will ask Otto to post it here to prove the weapons point.

As for torpedos changing direction--yet it happened, but only because the torpedo steering mechanism screwed up somehow. More than one Uboat was sunk by its own torpedo fire. The Gyros somehow jammed.

To enjoy the movie, you have to take a non-accurate historical approach--which means --watch it like you would watch a Star Trek movie--enjoy what fiction is to come.

[ 10 October 2001: Message edited by: C.Evans ]

 

That's a nice way to put it!

I can only pretend this is all taking place in a cold war scenario between USA/UK and Germany, where there is no active warfare and technology is in the 60s instead of the 40s. Or partly anyway.

A very what-iffy scenario. So for me U-571 is a film set in an alternate history that begins much sooner than 1939.

 

All I have to say about the movie is that well seeing it at the theater I repeatdly choked on popcorn and gummi bears. It did not enjoy it and every reason why has already been posted here.

 

Believe me, I too would have thought about it as a lousy movie, IF I watched it for historical accruacy, but I didnt, I watched it as pure fiction and enjoyed it. (Thanks Andreas

That would be interesting to see an "alternate" adventure for that uboat. Definately reminds me of a Star Trek episode. The one where there are two Enterprises, I think it was called "Mirror Mirror".

Mr. Spock sported a beard, Uhura was in a sexier costume, Sulu and Chekov, were vastly different. I miss that series.....