MovieChat Forums > Action in the North Atlantic (1943) Discussion > Is any one else bothered by the errors i...

Is any one else bothered by the errors in this movie?

posted 16 years ago by drbriggs3
22 replies | jump to latest

And no, I'm not talking about all of the propaganda, or the hokey special effects (good for their era), I'm talking about a lot of the technical details about the convoy. Such things as making the convoy narrow and long (rather then as it actually was, wide and short), such things as giving the escorts six main guns (three turrets, each with two guns, most escorts had only a single main gun up front), such things as the Convoy Commander is an American, from the Active Navy (almost all Convoy Commanders were retired British Senior Officers who had been recalled to Active Duty), and is moving the escorts around like chess pieces (the job of the Escort Commander, and the escorts themselves), and heck, such things as the dispersal of the Convoy, which only happened a couple of times in the heat of battle, but never when faced by attack from Submarines, but only when faced with attack by surface ships (and then almost always, if not always, on the Murmansk Run). I could go on and list several other things but those are enough. Is any one else bothered by the errors in this movie?

[–] Stilborn 16 years ago

[–] beethoven76 16 years ago

Since the film was made when the war was still in progress, they may havve deliberately shown facts about a convoy's formation in an erroneous fashion. Loose lips sink ships!

[–] ga526 16 years ago

I think that is a pretty keen observation, Beethoven. I know that, during WW2 especially, the powers that be kept details like the OP mentioned pretty close to their chest. Besides, I love these old war pictures for the drama and the dialog, not the technical accuracy, lines like, "I trust God, President Roosevelt and the Brooklyn Dodgers, in the order of their importance." Man, I love that stuff. I do have to admit though it would be cool to be as knowledgeable as Dr. Briggs about the the martial aspects of the armament and personnel in a period war movie like this one.

[–] usnjohn62 16 years ago

Lets not forget what Alfred Hitchcock said when asked about an error in one of his films............."Its just a movie".

[–] xylonian-1 16 years ago

"Its just a movie".

True enough....I was bothered a bit by the errors, but refer to this quote often....

My Life http://www.nga.gov/feature/artnation/vernet/index.shtm

[–] Bruce7 7 years ago

The difference now as compared to then. Americans weren't in a haste to ditch God at sea. Maybe part of the callous attitude now is the ease of life. Then they did not know the outcome of the Axis' Plans.

Can you fly this plane?
Surely u cant be serious
I am serious,and dont call me Shirley

[–] eThink 15 years ago

Based on the numbers referenced in the orders from the convoy commander, the US Destroyers appear to be members of the Benham Class.

Here is some information on the Benham Class:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benham_class_destroyer

The models used in "Action in the North Atlantic" look pretty close to this destroyer class.

[–] Bill_Loeb 15 years ago

The footage of the attack on the convoy is stock footage from "Air Force," also from Warner Bros. in 1943. Some of that footage was also used in "Destination Tokyo." I think the reason that the destroyers look odd is that they are models of Japanese ships, for "Air Force."

Studios didn't hesitate to swap footage from one movie to another. Some of the combat scenes from RKO's "Flying Tigers" are newsreel footage that changes from monoplanes to biplanes and back again.

[–] wombat1417 15 years ago

I'm watching it now on TCM.
One of my dearest friends was in the Merchant Marine, torpedoed three times and sunk twice. The topic came up once and said "Watch after Bogie's ship gets clear of the ambush. The German captain says something to the effect of "ACH!. Those Liberty Ships are too fast!". Then he shook his head.
Yeah, the merchantmen move too fast, the convoy shouldn't have dispersed, they wouldn'r be sitting there with all their machinery shut down, but few in the audience (like Cap'n Bart) would know or care as long as they were entertained.

[–] Piafredux 15 years ago

Visiting U.S. troops in Italy, Bogart was asked (and I may paraphrease thise here because I'm recalling the story from memory) by a G.I., "Where can I get one of those .45's like you had in 'Sahara' - the kind you never have to reload?" Bogey just smiled and said, "In Hollywood anything is possible." So that gives us one way of looking at inaccuracies in wartime films; besides we see this same nonsense in all those Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis movies in which the heroes gun down endless hordes of utterly undisciplined onrushing enemy soldiers who are too stupid to hunker down and then close-in intelligently, stealthily on our heroes - so it's not just films made during WWII that include such absurdities.

To the point of this discussion, wartime films had naval and military technical advisors, part of whose job was to not give away strategy, operational procedures, unit movements, tactics, or weapons capabilities to our Axis enemies. In 'Action In The North Atlantic' one huge error is the escot commander ordering the convoy to disperse; in fact convoys were rarely ordered to disperse, because dispersal rendered the then individually sailing vessels, without an escort screen, easy pickings for Nazi U-boats, and, along the course up the coast of Norway on the Murmansk run, also for Nazi aircraft. But if the Nazis watched this movie and were misled by it into believing that convoys under attack were, by Allied tatical doctrine, routinely dispersed, then I hope they did believe it, and I hope it helped our convoys and spared a good many of their sailors' lives.

No, then, I'm not bothered by the "errors" in 'Action In The North Atlantic.' This film holds up well because of its superb cast, relentless pacing, note-perfect Adolph Deutsch score (which by itself would be lovely to have on CD), and splendid action sequences.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] straw-dale 14 years ago

No, but that's just me.

Might I suggest "Victory at Sea".

Real WW2 footage!

[–] noobzilla 13 years ago

They only had 5 weeks to prepare for this movie.. thats nothing compared to most films.. also what details they included or didnt include about techniques, apects of the ships, convoy arrangements etc... are really irrelevant to the storyline here. Besides, when the movie was made, MOST of these things were unknown to most persons, how we engaged in war and the like.. After decades of history lessons we all know how we did all those things now.. but then not so much.

The accuracy of those things in this film (1943) didnt mean that much..

-- 'you're a good man, sister.' Humphrey Bogart

[–] jpgr1 13 years ago

I watch movies purely for entertainment value. This movie isn't a documentary. Although, let's be honest, some documentaries are even less accurate than fiction. This isn't my area of expertise so I didn't know of any of those interesting details you mention. I guess it's what you call blissful ignorance. When I watch movies that are in my field of expertise and they twist things around or get them wrong then, yeah, it does bother me a bit. I still try to always go for that "suspension of disbelief." After all, it's not real life, it's just a movie. What kind of rube would say "Oh I know exactly how 'x' went in WW2 because I saw it in a movie"? Err, on second thought...nevermind. Sadly, I've met people who spout "facts" from movies. :-p