Movies and Films
This is the forum for Movie and Film discussions. Again, our topic is naval warfare in WWII for the most part.
Re: Das Boot Film mistakes, comments?
Posted by:
westgunner
()
Date: December 07, 2002 06:14AM
<HTML> top guy strong~
hoho
Jimbo wrote:
>
>
> First I would like to say that this movie is one of my top 10
> all time favorites for the WWII genre.
>
> I noticed a couple of things in the movie that may have been
> mistakes. First, there are several crew members that are
> cleanly shaven throughout the movie. Given that the fresh
> water supply aboard a uboat was very limited, crew members
> did not shave (could not waste the water) so grew facial hair
> during the patrol. I understand some people simply do not
> grow facial hair, but this is rare -- and its not only just
> one crewman, but a couple!
>
> Second -- during one scene when the boat was being depth
> charged, it showed bolts shooting out in different directions
> from the bulkhead. Uboats didn't use bolts here for the
> seams, it was welded!
>
> I know these are small things, but I'm a fan for historical
> accuracy and noticed these two things. Anyone else notice
> these possible mistakes?
>
> Regards,
>
> Jimbo</HTML>
hoho
Jimbo wrote:
>
>
> First I would like to say that this movie is one of my top 10
> all time favorites for the WWII genre.
>
> I noticed a couple of things in the movie that may have been
> mistakes. First, there are several crew members that are
> cleanly shaven throughout the movie. Given that the fresh
> water supply aboard a uboat was very limited, crew members
> did not shave (could not waste the water) so grew facial hair
> during the patrol. I understand some people simply do not
> grow facial hair, but this is rare -- and its not only just
> one crewman, but a couple!
>
> Second -- during one scene when the boat was being depth
> charged, it showed bolts shooting out in different directions
> from the bulkhead. Uboats didn't use bolts here for the
> seams, it was welded!
>
> I know these are small things, but I'm a fan for historical
> accuracy and noticed these two things. Anyone else notice
> these possible mistakes?
>
> Regards,
>
> Jimbo</HTML>