1917 FILM

[Gil Boyd]

A good friend of mine Paul Biddiss ex Parachute Regiment is now heavily involved in delivering Military tactics/dress and weapons drill to the film industry. Its about time the industry took sound advice from such people, and Paul has already got Monuments Men/Fury/War & Peace/Dunkirk/Spectre and others under his belt, which I am sure you will agree he has done a fantastic job on and delivered, siting Fury about Sherman tank crews in WW2 as one of his hardest to date.

His latest film for Sam Mendes is 1917 surrounds the height of the First World War, two young British soldiers, Schofield (Captain Fantastic’s George MacKay) and Blake (Game of Thrones’ Dean-Charles Chapman) are given a seemingly impossible mission.
In a race against time, they must cross enemy territory and deliver a message that will stop a deadly attack on hundreds of soldiers— Blake’s own brother among them.
1917 also features Mark Strong, Andrew Scott, Richard Madden, Claire Duburcq, with Colin Firth and Benedict Cumberbatch, so a great line up.

I have attached a link which I hope works world wide. If not keep an eye out for this well made film about an incident in WW1!!
Gil

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Sunray]

"...Fury about Sherman tank crews in WW2 as one of his hardest to date..." Especially since the tank in Fury is a Firefly and the U.S. only had about 100 of 'em. They didn't use the Firefly in combat. Georgie Patton didn't think they needed a 17 pounder/90mm gun tank.

[GeeRam]

A good friend of mine Paul Biddiss ex Parachute Regiment is now heavily involved in delivering Military tactics/dress and weapons drill to the film industry. Its about time the industry took sound advice from such people, and Paul has already got Monuments Men/Fury/War & Peace/Dunkirk/Spectre and others under his belt, which I am sure you will agree he has done a fantastic job on and delivered, siting Fury about Sherman tank crews in WW2 as one of his hardest to date.

His latest film for Sam Mendes is 1917 surrounds the height of the First World War, two young British soldiers, Schofield (Captain Fantastic’s George MacKay) and Blake (Game of Thrones’ Dean-Charles Chapman) are given a seemingly impossible mission.

Given the slating Fury got among the US Armoured Living History Groups that have studied and worked on WW2 US Armoured for years and years.......
Spielberg made the same mistake with SPR and BOB.....employed an ex-US Marine for the tactics and drill, and loads of WW2 Living history people as extras, and the Living History guys knew more than the hired ex-mil guy who only knew about modern, not WW2 era. Spielberg listened to the ex-Marine not the people who spent years gleaning stuff from vets as well as period manuals etc.

I'm surprised Taff G wasn't involved in any film about WW1, he's pretty much the recognised WW1 British tactics/drill expert of the past 30 years.

[Gil Boyd]

I think a lot of this stuff comes down to a tight budget. If only the Directors/Producers had enough confidence in how much the film would make, that would probably pay for the right level of expertise.
Of course Pauls part in Fury was purely hand weapons and drills/tactics the tanks were clarly out of his realm. I'll have to ask him who was brought in to do that part of the larger weaponry!!

[Hcompton79]

"...Fury about Sherman tank crews in WW2 as one of his hardest to date..." Especially since the tank in Fury is a Firefly and the U.S. only had about 100 of 'em. They didn't use the Firefly in combat. Georgie Patton didn't think they needed a 17 pounder/90mm gun tank.

The tank in Fury was not a Firefly, the Firefly was a modified M4 Sherman with an extended turret basket to accommodate the larger breech of the 17 pounder. The tank portrayed in Fury was a M4A3E8 w/HVSS suspension and 76mm gun M1.

No 90mm gun was mounted on an M4 Sherman tank, the M36 Jackson tank destroyer used a 90mm gun and was based on the M4 Sherman chassis.

[Paul S.]

I watched The Somme recently. It supports Gil's thoughts about budget dictating how historical events are portrayed. I was amazed at the number of No. 4 rifles I saw even in the hands of main characters. What was even more amazing was how they modified the spike bayonets so they could mount P1907 bayonets to the No. 4 rifles. That had to cost a quid, but must have proved cheaper than sourcing the right number of SMLE rifles.

[CINDERS]

Some movies I have watched they have rubber bayonets and wobbly 303's guess some movie studios are not blessed with the engine power that Hollywood can generate.

I liked Unbroken to show just how all prisoners of war were treated by that certain power I have the book "Knights of Bushido" worth reading if you have a good enough imagination to visualize the abhorrent things they did another is that I also have as they are a pair the "Scourge of the Swastika" both are 1st Ed's HBDC'ed By Lord Russel of Liverpool, in all honesty they are tragic reading on the depths of depravity inflicted by these two regimes.

As far as Fury goes it was a disappointment all around to just get a glimpse of 131 I for one despite what some may say I would not have wanted to meet a Tiger in a Sherman knowing full well that the gun it possessed could do a through and through shot from stem to stern

[Gil Boyd]

Paul,
Tells me, its only those that are close up or filmed shooting their rifles/guns that the weapon is in fact a real blank firing one, the rest are wood/rubber combo's.........budget again!!

[Paul S.]

Mate, you're not wrong.

[mrclark303]

Discussing the Tiger tank .... You only have to stand in front of one and it's a seriously impressive piece of kit, facing one down in WW2 Tank combat, must have been absolutely terrifying!