Foxx Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 2 minutes ago, The_Dude said: ...I am not amused. Do you know what I thought you meant? sure. you know i like to mess with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bills4everNY Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 Sergeant York. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 On 1/24/2019 at 7:01 PM, DC Tom said: Honorable mention for worst ever: Pearl Harbor. ***** you, Michael Bay. ***** you hard, with each of the 700 sticks of dynamite you used to make seven of the most bull#### seconds of film I have ever seen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 3 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said: I think he was pushing for it @ Yalta [EDIT:Oops Yalta was 1945] ... To keep the Soviets in check from the East. Gallipoli was the first modern amphibious landing I believe. Maybe a redo, vindication? @DC Tom this is off of memory... I am not too far off base with Churchill pushing for another Gallipoli front to keep Soviets in check? EDIT: @ the Tehran Conference, 1943. My bad. Not Gallipoli per se, but he was always pushing for actions in the Balkans as a counter-balance to inevitable Soviet influence in Eastern Europe. As for Galliploi being the first modern amphibious landing...define "modern." It was probably about as different from landings in the Crimean War as it was from landing at Saipan. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 3 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Not Gallipoli per se, but he was always pushing for actions in the Balkans as a counter-balance to inevitable Soviet influence in Eastern Europe. As for Galliploi being the first modern amphibious landing...define "modern." It was probably about as different from landings in the Crimean War as it was from landing at Saipan. Crimean War /American Civil War. Modern with the advent of say machine guns, trenches, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gray Beard Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 (edited) No love for John Wayne? Sands of Iwo Jima Return to Bataan They were Expendable Operation Pacific Flying Leathernecks The Wings of Eagles Edited January 26, 2019 by Gray Beard 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Flanders Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 20 hours ago, Gray Beard said: Many good ones mentioned already. I’ll add a favorite of mine.... The Devil’s Brigade should have had that in my list, thanks for the reminder! On 1/25/2019 at 9:29 AM, plenzmd1 said: Does Father Goose count? I mean Gary Grant and Leslie Caron??? Awesome movie. Miss Freneau!!!!! Maybe if you also count Operation Petticoat! ? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 (edited) 58 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said: Crimean War /American Civil War. Modern with the advent of say machine guns, trenches, etc... Crimean was 6 years earlier, and larger than any landing in the Civil War. Gallipoli was more in line with those earlier invasions, in that it was an ill-planned attempt based on the idea of "get troops ashore and then do something" - i.e. that the battle began at the beach with the landing. "Modern" amphibious warfare starts when generals and admirals start realizing that a landing force has to be fought on to the beach and inland - that the battle space is the littoral and forward, not the beach and forward. That pretty much starts at Vera Cruz in 1914. Which is notable, because it predates Gallipoli...but Gallipoli was very much of the previous century, lacking any plans for communication, coordination, command, or fire support. "Machine guns" and 'trenches" were irrelevant to the nature, execution, and result of the invasion; it was poor staff work (as was typical of most of Churchill's brainstorms), command arrangements, and communication that characterized the invasion and make it pre-modern. EDIT: I should add that my interpretation of military history is doctrinal, not tactical or technical. So you'll probably find plenty of authorities who disagree with me on the above. They would be what I call "wrong." Every historical "transformation in warfare," as Rumsfeld says, stemmed from increased communications, intelligence, and movement - being able to tell people what to do, get them to do it, to collect and disseminate information, and to move ***** around faster and get it places first. Edited January 26, 2019 by DC Tom 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 4 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Crimean was 6 years earlier, and larger than any landing in the Civil War. Gallipoli was more in line with those earlier invasions, in that it was an ill-planned attempt based on the idea of "get troops ashore and then do something" - i.e. that the battle began at the beach with the landing. "Modern" amphibious warfare starts when generals and admirals start realizing that a landing force has to be fought on to the beach and inland - that the battle space is the littoral and forward, not the beach and forward. That pretty much starts at Vera Cruz in 1914. Which is notable, because it predates Gallipoli...but Gallipoli was very much of the previous century, lacking any plans for communication, coordination, command, or fire support. "Machine guns" and 'trenches" were irrelevant to the nature, execution, and result of the invasion; it was poor staff work (as was typical of most of Churchill's brainstorms), command arrangements, and communication that characterized the invasion and make it pre-modern. You would have thought they would have treated a beachhead like attacking a fortress. No? Just getting there and doing something is akin to going up to the walls of a fort, regrouping then trying to breach. That's insane, right? What let then think differently? A big wide sandy beach to stand around out in the open? Oh... Did anyone mention: On war comedy front: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 6 hours ago, Foxx said: the war of the roses. 6 hours ago, The_Dude said: Huh? They made a movie on that? Starz made a miniseries a few years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Queen_(TV_series) And a follow up series on the reign of Henry VII a few years later https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Princess_(TV_series) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted January 26, 2019 Author Share Posted January 26, 2019 7 minutes ago, /dev/null said: Starz made a miniseries a few years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Queen_(TV_series) And a follow up series on the reign of Henry VII a few years later https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Princess_(TV_series) Any good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 26, 2019 Share Posted January 26, 2019 13 minutes ago, The_Dude said: Any good? They take several creative liberties with the timeline and historical figures, and there's not much battle. It's more of a Game of Thrones palace intrigue series, but worth watching. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 While it’s not a war movie in the sense that it shows battles etc., Deerhunter belongs in the discussion. It was a very impanctful movie. https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-deer-hunter-1979 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bills4everNY Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 Buster Keaton's "The General." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 4 hours ago, BuffaloBill said: While it’s not a war movie in the sense that it shows battles etc., Deerhunter belongs in the discussion. It was a very impanctful movie. https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-deer-hunter-1979 I would say Deerhunter is a "war movie." IMO, so is: Anybody say: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 Am I the only one who voted for enemy at the gates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nextmanup Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 14 hours ago, BuffaloBill said: While it’s not a war movie in the sense that it shows battles etc., Deerhunter belongs in the discussion. It was a very impanctful movie. https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-deer-hunter-1979 Great movie that I forgot about when I did my list. 10 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said: I would say Deerhunter is a "war movie." IMO, so is: Anybody say: I always loved the "P-51 Cadillac of the sky" scene from Empire of the Sun, but overall, the film missed the mark and was a disappointment. Another film I forgot about, which I think can be considered a "war movie" is "Schindler's List" which is a phenomenal film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrags Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 On 1/25/2019 at 10:19 PM, Augie said: A telling indicator about American Sniper was the absolute silence of everybody leaving the theater when it was over. NOBODY made a peep. This. It was absolutely silent after the movie. Band of Brothers is the best war movie/series I’ve ever seen. I watch it at least once a year. It’s absolitely incredible. Hacksaw Ridge is amazing as well Lone Survivor is very good We Were Soldiers Fury Saving Private Ryan American Sniper Inglorious Bastards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 27, 2019 Share Posted January 27, 2019 There's war in it. Maybe a stretch: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 On 1/26/2019 at 3:10 PM, Gray Beard said: No love for John Wayne? Sands of Iwo Jima Return to Bataan They were Expendable Operation Pacific Flying Leathernecks The Wings of Eagles Sadly, no. Acting is just too weak. These movies played at the base theater every weekend I was in the Corps. Seen most of the films listed and enjoy them all. under the radar: Conspiracy. HBO flick on the Wannsee Conference, January ‘42. No bombs, tanks or machine guns. Just 15 high ranking Nazi’s sitting around a table, enjoying lunch and discussing implementation of the Final Solution. https://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Kenneth-Branagh/dp/B00KG2QO2K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts