Good cast, good director, bad story
**SPOILERS**
I just couldn't believe that a sub captain would avoid a juicy convoy to go after a particular destroyer. All in all, a very "Hollywood" submarine movie.
This space intentionally left blank
**SPOILERS**
I just couldn't believe that a sub captain would avoid a juicy convoy to go after a particular destroyer. All in all, a very "Hollywood" submarine movie.
This space intentionally left blank
I guess you didn't catch the opening of it. It explains why the "juicy convoy" wasn't on his mind. It's also adapted from a book, and in the book, Richardson gets obsessed with the destroyer.
You're not getting old, the music just sucks.
I understand he was after the destroyer that sunk his previous sub. But I found the whole thing contrived.
What would hurt the enemy more, sinking tankers and other high-value targets, or sinking a destroyer?
Certainly obsession is a tried and true theme, nothing wrong with that. But I found it contrived and unrealistic the way it was portrayed in this movie.
Just my $0.02
This space intentionally left blank
If it makes any difference the book is really good, and different from the film.
Cheers
Dave
The destroyer was what was protecting the convoy. It makes perfect sense.
Imo this is a great and highly underrated war film.
I think I disagree it makes perfect sense, after reading this wonderful book:
http://www.amazon.com/Iron-Coffins-Personal-Account-Battles/dp/0306811 60X
Sub skippers did their best to avoid the escorts, and sink the ships in the convoy.
This space intentionally left blank
It must really suck for you to be stuck on Earth with us illogical humans. You can't wait to get back to Vulcan, can you?
Ignorance is the foundation of atheism, and freethinking the cure of it. -- Anthony Collins
Sub skippers did their best to avoid the escorts, and sink the ships in the convoy.
There's a lot of Moby-Dick in this movie--an aging captain disobeying his orders in order to exact revenge on the foe that dismasted him during his previous voyage.
"I'm not the king. There's only one King." -- Elvis
Spacer,
Great observation of elements similar to Moby Dick, except of course im MB the ship was lost and almost all the crew as well.
But yes, the search for the prey above all else with the aging captain involved. I would merely caution that here the captain has plausible reasons for his pursuit, and not merely revenge. Bungo Pete was a nemesis of all US sub crews in the area, and was doing a great job protecting the strategic area. Ahab had no equivalent motivation.
You're correct. U.S. submarines would try to sink merchant ships, not destroyers. But sometimes destroyers would try to save merchants by intercepting torpedoes as a last desperate action. In fact, the real Akikazi was sunk with the loss of all hands after intercepting a U.S. torpedo, as you can read near the bottom of this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_destroyer_Akikaze
It is better to be kind than to be clever or good looking. -- Derek
I think it a good idea to revisit my May 27, 2014 post regarding the connection of this film to Moby Dick, having re-read MD in the interim.
While I think it quite accurate to distinguish Cmdr. Richardson from Ahab, in the sense that sinking the Akikaze would be of benefit to the general war effort of the US subs, it would be a mistake to characterize Ahab's motives as entirely, well, crazy. His encounter with Moby Dick before the story's beginning, losing one of his legs, and much else of material investment in his ship, not to mention lives of the crew that were lost, gave him a motive of personal revenge. Revenge may not be the prettiest of motives, depending, but it is not categorically irrational.
And Moby Dick also was sinking other whalers, and was a menace to the industry of which Ahab was something of a leader, and not just as a captain, but also as an investor.
Now the extent to which Ahab carried his endeavor is where the irrational came in. Richardson took chances and did seem to deviate from orders at times. But the whole point of the story was that he was not irrational at any point in doing what he did.
I would also like to point out that this scenario does not have a lack of precedent. Submarine Captain Samuel Dealey was awarded his MOH for deliberately sinking 5 destroyers, specifically targeting them, during a war patrol.
"You feel the way the boat moves? The sunlight on your skin? That’s real. Life is wonderful."
I would also like to point out that this scenario does not have a lack of precedent. Submarine Captain Samuel Dealey was awarded his MOH for deliberately sinking 5 destroyers, specifically targeting them, during a war patrol.
A much bigger reason was the US devoted most of its resources to fight the Nazis,which changed after V-E Day. Also, Japanese industry couldn't compete against the US war machine.
shareThere were several reasons. your second is a part of it. Your first... not so much.
There really was no major shift of resources from Europe to the Pacific theater. It was merely in the planning stages.
Germany did not fall til May of 1945, Japan was already mostly beaten by then with fighting closing in on the Japanese homeland. And a lot of what we had in Europe stayed in Europe as part of the Occupation forces. Just because Germany surrendered is no reason to let your guard down. We were only in the initial planning stages of seeing what can be shifted when we Dropped the A-Bombs just 3 months later.
So no... "the US devoted most of its resources to fight the Nazis,which changed after V-E Day." is NOT a bigger reason. No reason at all in fact.
The three biggest things (in no particular order) that affected the Strategic war against the Japanese was...
1) Japanese adherence to Doctrine as unchangeable orders
2) US Subs interdicting Japanese supply Lines
3) The US Industrial Machine
And of those three... that third one, the one you mentioned and got right... is the least of them. The Japanese industrial might was nearly as powerful as our own. the problem was that they were entirely reliant upon imported resources to which #2 put an end to. They had as powerful an industrial machine as our own, they just could not feed it with their own resources, which we choked off.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
it is this failure to ... grasp Doctrine as suggestions and guidelines rather than orders... that doomed the Japanese military more than anything else.
"A serious problem in trying to counter American naval doctrine is that Americans don't read their manuals and feel no obligation to follow their doctrine."