Possible Goof? - U-571 (2000) Discussion

[–] michaelnewman01 14 years ago

Well, I don't know what the German Christmas tree indicated, but if the main induction valve was on there, it would have to be open (red). You have something with this.

reply

[–] CGSailor 14 years ago

I'll have to rewatch to verify but yes you do have a goof there if true.

Though technically at that point they could have ran the diesels even with a white board... as there were several sizable holes in the sub from the Destroyers cannon.

Still, it is a goof because they were running the diesels before they took a hit.

Those rock-crushers gulped down huge volumes of air when running.
There have been numerous examples of running on the surface during heavy seas and just a momentary closure of the main induction flood valve caused the engines to chug down and stutter as well as popping the eardrums of the crew due to the sudden vacuum pulled in the boat.

Closing the main induction and opening the forward torpedo room hatch could exchange the full volume of air in the boat in a matter of minutes.
Watching those blue curtains streaming aft at a 45 degree angle in gale force winds.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] Canonshooter-1 14 years ago

There's another possible goof I noticed. After they torpedoed the re-supply sub, they said the battery charge was virtually gone. They get the one deisel running and used that for propulsion on the surface. If the battery is drained and there is only one engine running, they can't re-charge the battery without taking the engine off propulsion for at least an hour for a minimal charge. American Gato class subs had four deisels so they could use two or three for running and one or two for charging. U-571 had two deisels and one was broken, so they couldn't have re-charged their batteries.

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

reply

[–] CGSailor 14 years ago

Good catch though it still possibly not a goof, just actions that took place off screen in the intervening time between scenes.

(like how no characters EVER have to use the restroom unless someing in the plot is supposed to happen there.)

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] michaelnewman01 14 years ago

Well, I would think it depends a bit. By the end of the war, almost all submarines had electrically decoupled powerplants. No matter how you looked at it, the diesels generated electricy which was sent to the battery and then used to drive electric motors--even on the surface. Once the battery had been recharged to minimal levels, there would have been no problem making turns.

This setup is evident in how the lights come back on when they surface and start the diesels. While their maximum speed would possibly have been something less than if the battery was fully charged, they would have been able to put on an ahead bell.

reply

[–] CGSailor 14 years ago

By the end of the war, almost all submarines had electrically decoupled powerplants.

I am not quite sure what you mean by electrically decoupled powerplants. If it is what I think you mean, No Subs during WW II that I know of were "Direct Drive" with their Diesels.

No matter how you looked at it, the diesels generated electricy which was sent to the battery and then used to drive electric motors--even on the surface.

Close but not quite true.

You are correct in that a Sub Running on it's Diesels did not have the diesels directly turning the shafts i.e. direct drive.

The Diesels turned generators which in turn turned electric motors which in turn drove the shafts.

When in Charge, the generators are uncoupled from the motors and go to charging the batteries instead.

When in Electric drive, the batteries are coupled to the motors.

So whether on Diesels or on Battery, the Shafts are ALWAYS turned by electric motors, never the diesel engines directly.

Surfaced Operation:
ENG --> GEN --> MOT --> Shafts

Submerged Operation:
BAT --> MOT --> Shafts

Charging Operations:
ENG --> GEN --> BAT

During Charge, some Engins are charging, others are driving the gen and motors.

A Diesel charging cannot also provide motive power at the same time. So with only ONE Diesel, they had to lie still while the baterry charges.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] michaelnewman01 14 years ago

I'm not sure I agree with that.

In order to prevent power spikes when using a generator, you have to use a third medium to control it. In most cases, this is the battery, since a battery can be both drained and charged at the same time. Furthermore, the electric motors on most subs were DC, so you'd have to convert to DC anyways.

Diesels=>Generators(AC)=>Rectifier(Pulse DC)=>Battery(DC stored)=> Electric motors on shafts(DC).

Aside, the early Gato-class boats had direct drive diesels.

EDIT: The Gatos actually did have completely decopled systems, the concept actually started with the Sargo boats if I'm not mistaken.

A true diesel-electric propulsion system is significant in that it has the ability to be both charging and providing propulsion at the same time.

reply

[–] michaelnewman01 14 years ago

Okay, CGSailor, I went to the horse's mouth for this one.

According to CDR Jeffrey Stettler, USN, Submarine EDO and Head of Naval Architecture at USNA:

"The principle of the diesel-electric system is similar to that of a hybrid Prius. The battery provides electricity to the electric drive; the diesels charge the battery. That is the most common design, however there many variants that may change up that system."

Now, I'm not sure but I think U-571 was supposed to be a Type VIIC U-Boat. I'm not familiar with the model so I can't say what specific type of drive it used, but I think either of us could be right. If you know more about the VIIC powerplant, props.

reply

[–] CGSailor 14 years ago

In your post above... The issue you had was with the AC Generators, power spikes etc...

Just one problem.
The Generators are DC, not AC
Four direct-current generators: each rated 1,100 kw, 415 volts, 750 rpm. Each generator is cooled by a surface air cooler and generates power for driving the propulsion motors and charging the storage batteries. Each generator is driven by a directly connected diesel engine

Read about the subs powerplant here: NAVPERS 16160, The US Navy's training manual for submarines published in June 1946:

http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/chap6.htm#6A

So you see it is:

Diesels ==> DC Generators ==> DC Motors ==> Propulsion
or
Diesels ==> DC Generators ==> Batteries/charging
or
Batteries/discharging ==> DC Motors ==> Propulsion

Diesels are directly connected to the DC generators and only run on the surface

The Generators are either running the motors OR charging batteries, never both.

The batteries are either charging from the generators or are discharging to the motors, never both.

Your above quote though apparently from an authoritative source is speaking generally to a group of civvies. In otherwords, he is speaking in laymans terms and his words are not all inclusive. And he is trying to use anology to reference the information to something more familier(A Prius).

In my examples above, I did not mention the reduction gears and other machinery between the DC Motors and the prop shafts. Does that mean you are to take my words as claiming the Motors are direct connected to the shafts like the Diesels are direct connected to the DC Generators? Nor did I mention Main motor control.

In General, what he said is correct... Diesels are used to charge batteries. Batteries are used to run motors.

But you are trying to make the claim that even surfaced that the diesels STILL run through the batteries and then on to the motors. and that they can charge and run at the same time.

Simply not true.

Batteries are bypassed when the Diesels are used to propel the Sub.

All WW2 Subs used this method. There may be a few leftover WW1 subs that may have had an older plant that did as you suggest but none that I am aware of.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] CGSailor 14 years ago

I re-watched and confirmed the Christmas tree error.

They surface and Tyler calls for Tank to "Start the Diesels". A moment later the diesels roar to life and they are running on the surface. It could be argued that in the sake of brevity, simply did not bother showing all the steps and orders given to rig the sub for surface operations but a few scene later you can still clearly see the Christmas tree rigged for dive with all lights White, or Clear (Klar)

Two other mistakes caught during this viewing and not listed by Imdb in the goofs section.

first caught mistake:
During the deep submergence dive when they go all the way to 200m, and after getting under the Depth Charges, a seawater systems flange lets go under pressure and the sub starts flooding. Frantic yells and orders take place to save the sub and get her to the surface. One of these orders you hear Tyler yell is to "Blow Negative"

This cannot be true because Negative is kept blown dry at all times unless they are intentionally trying to dive fast, like in an emergency dive. I don't know the exact capacity of a Type VIIC Uboat but in US Fleet Type subs the Negative tank has around 14,000 Lbs of seawater capacity. While not shown, they may have flooded negative to dive to 200m but they had leveled off at 200m and they cannot do that without blowing Negative dry again. With aprox 7 tons negative buoyancy, the sub would have continued to plumit right past 200m and on to crush depth.

Second caught mistake not yet shown in Imdb:

During the S-33's first trim dive after leaving port, you see a series of orders carried out to submerge the sub. One of these is the COB sounding the Dive alarm and passing the word "Dive Dive Dive" on the 1MC announcing circuit.
He sound the alarm three times ( AOOGAH, AOOGAH, AOOGAH) and repeats "Dive" three times

this is incorrect.
TWO blats of the dive alarm are used for diving.
THREE blats of the alarm are used to signal that the sub is SURFACING

NAVPERS 16160: http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/chap18.htm#18A

The diving signal is two short blasts on the diving alarm, the second blast being the signal to start the dive. Two blasts are used to guard against diving on an accidental single blast. An alternate diving signal is the word "Dive, Dive" passed orally.

At the sounding of the signal, three blasts of the diving alarm, or the passing of the word "Surface, Surface, Surface," the various actions necessary are performed.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] michaelnewman01 14 years ago

CG, you're right about those two for sure.

I must say, you got under my skin and got me thinking, so I've looked around some.

First of all, I wasn't quoting CDR Stettler from a speech, he's the head of my department and I asked him in his office. I'm a naval architecture student though, not a marine engineer, so I have no doubt he used layman's terms.

Secondly, you're right in regards to American subs.

I looked up the manual for the Type VIIC at
http://uboatarchive.net/Manual.htm

"Diesel engine drive only.
In Diesel engine only drive; both Diesel engines drive the screws via the Diesel engine couplings, E motors, main couplings, thrust shafts and the propeller shafts.

In this arrangement the E motors are just a part of the drive train and the armatures are unpowered. The fan blowers of the E machines rotate slowly powered by voltage generated due to the remanent magnetism of the unpowered rotating armature."

The Type VIIC's then, had direct drive, as per the diagram in the manual.

"Diesel-electric drive.
Diesel-electric drive allows driving both screws even if one Diesel engine has failed. The operational Diesel engine works directly driving the screw on its side. The E machine whose armature would normally run idle, works as a generator delivering power to the other ship side. The E motor on the other side drives the screw; the Diesel engine clutch is disengaged. The current from the primary E motor can either be switched in such a way that it only drives the secondary E motor or an additional light charge of the batteries takes place."

reply

[–] CGSailor 14 years ago

Brings up a further film goof then when the starboard E-motor siezed and Tyler talks about not being able to creep away on one screw.

Good work

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] michaelnewman01 14 years ago

Here's an interesting one.

In the sub vs. sub battle, LT Tyler tries to turn faster by reversing one motor "Starboard back full". The shot cuts to a scene with the screw slowing down, presumably to reverse direction. But just moments later the view of the screws shows them as turning opposed.

For forward motion, the propellers would be turning opposite of each other to cancel out side forces and gyroscopic effects, so the shot clearly shows both motors answering an ahead bell.

reply

[–] CGSailor 14 years ago

I thought I caught that one. Something looked wrong in that scene and that was it. I was too busy wanting to get to the other scene and did not bother to rewind and check but you are correct. Counter rotating screws meant both were using either ahead or backing bells.

Both rotating in the same direction shows that one screw is ahead bells and the other answering backing bells.

Since the tight-in shot (showing only the one screw) clearly showed that screw slowing and changing it's direction, and the wider shot shows both counter rotating ahead when they should have one backing.... It would be interesting to know which is the goof.

A) Did the film crew goof by using a shot showing both ahead rather than one backing, or...

B) Did the film crew goof by thinking that was correct and that normally both screw are in the same direction and counter rotating was how one backed?

To figure that out we need to revisit the film and look for other underwater shots showing both screws while the sub was underway with both ahead. See if they were rotating together or opposite then as well.

Back to our original point of contention.

Yes there is a difference in how the German Propulsion plants operated from their American counterparts. My statements hold true as concerns the US Fleet Type subs.

SURFACED:
Diesel ==> Generators ==> Motors ==> Shaft

SUBMERGED:
Batteries == Motors ==> Shaft

CHARGING(only on surface)
Diesel ==> Generators ==> Motors ==> Shaft
Diesel ==> Generators ==> Batteries

With four Diesel/Generator setups as well as an AUX Diesel The Fleet types had great flexibility in how they ran their engines AND charged batteries.

Both the MAN and GW engines of the Type VII and IX U-boats had the following configurations

SURFACED:
Diesels ==> Clutched directly to shafts

SUBMERGED:
Batteries ==> Motors ==> Shafts (Same as US Fleet Types)

CHARGING: (Surfaced only)
1 Diesel ==> Generator ==> Batteries
1 Diesel ==> Clutched directly to shaft

With only the two Diesel/generators the U boat was far more limited in its setup. The American boat could still drive with 3 diesels on propulsion with the fourth and the AUX on charge, or motor along with one diesel on propulsion and all three other diesels cramming a charge into the batteries, or any other combination thereof.

Still your original statement was incorrect in that the power train for running on the diesels was:

Diesel ==> Generator ==>Batteries ==> Motor ==> Shafts

To refresh what your position was to start...

The OP stated:

They get the one deisel running and used that for propulsion on the surface. If the battery is drained and there is only one engine running, they can't re-charge the battery without taking the engine off propulsion for at least an hour for a minimal charge.

Basically, with only one Diesel, they could not both charge batteries and drove the vessel. And this is CORRECT.

You responded with:

No matter how you looked at it, the diesels generated electricity which was sent to the battery and then used to drive electric motors--even on the surface.

This is now shown to be clearly incorrect.
One diesel ran the generator which charged batteries
the other diesel was clutched DIRECTLY to the propulsion shaft.

Nowhere and under no configuration was the diesel/generators sent to the batteries and from there straight back to the motors and shaft.

You cited a further scene example as "proof"

This setup is evident in how the lights come back on when they surface and start the diesels.

No such thing is evident at all. there is another explanation that that is the correct one that fits the reality of the engines and the film.

You ASSUMED that the Diesels were lined up for propulsion and thus the charge from the Diesel/Generators were running through the batteries on their way to the motors/shafts, This would explain the lights coming on.

REALITY CHECK:
When Tank started the diesel, it was lined up for a battery charge (NOT Propulsion). THAT is why when it started the lights started coming back on. In a later scene we now see that they are underway, but there is no telling how many hours elapsed BETWEEN the two scenes. Clearly long enough to get an adequate charge into the batteries, then SHIFT the one good diesel from charge to propulsion.

Though no specific times were mentioned to my recall, the radar detection of the U-571 by the S-33 took place while the officers were at supper. It could not have been dark long, in fact the early rendezvousing with the U-571 seemed to be not quite full dark but dim twilight.

The boarding/securing of the U-571 and the subsequent attack by the resupply sub took place not too long after full dark.

Assuming several hours for Tank to fix the one diesel, this would still place the time around midnight or so for getting the engine fixed. The first scene showing the sub underway on the surface was the following day well after first light (sun angle high in sky). This gave more than enough hours for a battery charge in the intervening time.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] michaelnewman01 14 years ago

Well, the scene I was referencing was actually when the destroyer engages them. They surface, Tyler tells Tank to put an ahead bell on. "Tank,start the Diesel! All ahead full!"

Tank starts up the diesel (Remember that the last lineup before they submerged was for propulsion) and answers "Port Diesel Ahead Full!"

At the same time, the lights come back on, flickering, with sparks flying. The sailors look around at the lights coming back on. The scene immediately cuts to the U-571 underway with the destroyer bearing down on them.

Now, the manual I directed you to specifically states that one diesel can provide propulsion and either a "light" charge on the batteries or the power to turn the other shaft. There is no equivocation on that point.

I'm quite willing to concede I was in error with the the general layout as I first stated it. But seriously, I'm directly quoting the Type VIIC manual. The direct connection drives the screw, and electrical power is taken off by using that rotation. This is enough to drive both screws or conduct a battery charge, even with one diesel disabled.

The point is, the Type VIICs did NOT have eletrically decoupled powerplants. I was wrong in my first statement, and you are incorrect in saying that the Type VIIC powerplant could not charge and propel at the same time.

I stand corrected about my earlier statements regarding the connections. But we were both wrong in regards to the U-boat's propulsion--there was a third alternative.

Modern diesel-electric plants are diverse in their methods of propulsion, and there are many configurations, which is part of why I brought up hybrids.

Note the wording of this quote: "Even if one Diesel fails"

From Type VIIC U-Boat Ship Study, Part B. Machinery, I. Propulsion Plant, Section 6. "Interoperation of the engines and motors."

Paragraph E:

"Diesel-electric drive allows driving both screws even if one Diesel engine has failed. The operational Diesel engine works directly driving the screw on its side. The E machine whose armature would normally run idle, works as a generator delivering power to the other ship side. The E motor on the other side drives the screw; the Diesel engine clutch is disengaged. The current from the primary E motor can either be switched in such a way that it only drives the secondary E motor or an additional light charge of the batteries takes place."

I think that this speaks for itself.

Now, as to ANOTHER thing I found. (I might just watch this just to catch goofs.) The location of U-571 by the intellignece shows it on close to the same latitude as southern England and France. When Tyler decides where to go, he chooses to go to Land's End. ("It's the closest, besides occupied France.")

Now, the scene shown of them moving along after sunrise shows the sun off their port beam. The beginning of the movie states that it takes place in spring, so it should be pretty close to the equinox with the sun directly to the east.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this would put them on a course closer to South than East, which would take them nowhere near Land's End.

One more, not so sure about it and looking for confirmation:

During the firing of the aft torpedo tube, it looks like at least one the stern planes are in the "full dive" position. Consdering their bow was flooding rapidly, I would think they would want to be pulling full rise. Perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps nitpicky, whatever.

reply

[–] CGSailor 14 years ago

I love being able to debate opposing views and each correcting the others facts till some fact becomes clear to both sides. And to do so without devolving into a flamewar.

I'm going to watch it again tonight. I know there are problems with every depthcharge scene concerning the amount of charges in so short a times as if the destroyer was parked over the sub rather than making passing runs.

I have not had time to study the Manual you linked but take you at your word. It does make sense and I have no reason to doubt you. I can see that some electrical generation would take place despite not actually being lined up for a charge. Enough to run ships systems but not enough to build a charge strong enough to power the motors for propulsion perhaps.

Still I think you may be confusing two scenes.

I will have to rewatch the scene you claim to see if the lights behave in that scene as you described.

They CLEARLY do so in the earlier scene. The last of the power runs out during a discussion in the control room... Later we see Tank working by Battle Lantern (Flashlight) in the Engine room, He completes the last of his repairs and cranks the Diesel, the lights come on as you claim in the later scene with the Destroyer. I feel you are confusing this scene with the later scene.

As I said though I will review it again tonight.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] michaelnewman01 14 years ago

I'll be the first to admit, I'm a compulsive arguer and extremely passionate about submarines and ship design in general. It's better to just keep on looking over the facts, though, than to start tossing out insults and stop trying to figure things out--especially because that's how we can learn.

Thanks for the clarification on the drive systems, I didn't know that was how the U.S. Fleet-types were set up.

reply

[–] CGSailor 14 years ago

Concerning goofs not shown in the Goofs section already...

We got:
Christmas tree indicating rigged for dive when diesels are running

Blowing Negative when negative must already be dry

Sounding Dive alarm three times rather than two.

One Diesel/no battery charge delima is "Incorrectly regarded as goof"
Either way, yours or mine... they could still have gained a charge.

Backing props counter-rotating

Though I have yet to detail it here... numerous problems with Depth charging... post on it comming soon.(tomorrow maybe)

What else?...
None of these are yet indicated in the goofs section..

Oh yeah.. your comment about nearest land and the Chop Line.
There is already a chop line goof in that it was in the wrong position during the timeframe of the film. while it was a correct location, the chop line moved several times during the course of the war and the posistion shown was later in the war, not 1942. that does not affect your additional goof of nearest land being "Lands End"

I'll be rechecking that battery/lights scene here in a few hours but won't be able to post more tonight.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] CGSailor 14 years ago

I don't have time and you are more familier with the manual, can you research another possible goof.

concerning the Christmans tree and the sabotage preventing them from diving under the destroyer.

One light remains red and they are not "rigged for dive"

Tank manages to fix whatever it is... he yells "Hydraulics restored" and the light goes from red to white... rigged for dive.

QUESTION...
IS the Hydraulic system part of what needs to be working as far as the Christmas tree?... In US vessels it represents hull openings that must be closed... not Hydraulic systems.
It could be argued some of the hull openings needed hydraulics to close but every system I know of had mechanical backups. At least they did in US Subs.

Also there semed to be too few lights (indicators) The German one in film seemed to have a double row of lights. The US System had two double rows indicating many more openings than on a comparable German sub.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] michaelnewman01 14 years ago

Hmmm...

I've thought about that one, too, but I wasn't sure either. When they are approaching the destroyer, you can see that the decks are barely awash. They're trying to dive; they're just too buoyant because the MBTs are still dry.

According to Page 183, there are two displays. The first is the "Compartment Ready Indicating System":

"The system is used to report compartment readiness for diving through indicating lamps. An indicating lamp box with 5 lamps is installed in the Control Room on the forward stb side of the periscope well. When the compartment reports readiness for diving, the switch located in that room closes the circuit and the related indicating lamp highlights the word “Ready” on the indicating lamp box."

The second panel is the equivalent of the American Christmas Tree, the "Hull Closure Indicating System":

"The hull closure indicating system is used to report state of the hull valves on the indicating lamp box. The box is installed on the forward stb side of periscope well, under the compartment ready indicating lamp box. There are 5 indicating lamps, which are controlled by contact switches provided for the following valves:
For the outer exhaust gas valve port and starboard
" Diesel engine air intake upper valve
" Intake air upper valve
" Exhaust air upper valve"

The display in the movie omits one of these indicating systems; by visual inspection it looks like the actual "christmas tree" is missing and the compartment ready indicator is visible. This makes sense for the context--Chief Klough says that the Engine Room itself is not ready when Tyler looks at the indicator board--but brings up a whole mountain of other issues.

To answer your overall question, the hydraulic system is not indicated on the German hull closure panel, and it is possible to dive without a green board--you'll just flood and die. The MBTs aren't indicated on the tree, and it looked to me like they were struggling earlier to open the forward MBT vents. The hydraulics being restored allowed them to flood the tanks and dive.

The indicator lights in the movie are (forgive me) an Enigma. It could be that Tank flipped on the compartment ready indicator; it could be that once he had restored the hydraulics he shut the induction and exhaust valves. Or it could be that the movie just screwed it up.

reply

[–] CGSailor 14 years ago

You are right in that it explains some thing yet raises a host of other questions.

German Submarine tech is touted as the best in WW 2. Cutting edge. Yet in most every way but a few, US Subs were far superior and safer.

Yes, you reminded me that they were having trouble with the floods for the MBT's and it was not until after Tank restored the Hydraulics that they were able to flood the tanks and dive. That explains the scene....

What it does not explain is why could the MBT's only be flooded under Hydraulic power? US Systems could be hand operated.

I went back and referenced the US Christmas Tree and yes it does in fact appear that there are too few indicators as shown on the film. Perhaps as you stated, they were just showing one of the two actual panels. The US System was also two panel boxes mounted side by side in the control room over the main hydraulic control station. http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/chap12.htm#fig12-3.
Here is a closeup http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/chap18.htm#fig18-1.

As you can see the first box has indicators for the Main Ballast Tanks(MBT), Fuel Ballast Tanks (FBT) and Special Ballast Tanks (SBT) in a double row across the top .

MBT 7, MBT 6a/b/c/d, FBT 5, FBT 4, MBT 2a/b/c/d, MBT 1, Safety, Bow Buoyancy, Negative.

It also has vertically on the right for the floods with Port floods above and STBD floods on bottom. there is another set of indicators just right of the floods that is unlabeled. In the chapters it discusses that the valves can be controlled port and starboard or both. I am assuming these unlabeled indicators are for both based on thier position between the port/Stbd flood indicators.

NOTE:
The floods are only for the SBT's and FBT's as the MBT's were free-flooding with no flood valves to open or close.

The second box to the right had indicators for everything else other than the ballast tanks.
Top Row:
Vent outboard exhaust, 4 indicators for each of the four Diesel's exhaust (leading to the outboard exhaust), 3 indicators for hatches (cannot read labels in photo, one looks like "gun access hatch")

Middle Row:
Inboard Valves, induction, hull. four indicators reads: MAIN, AFT ???, FWD ???, and Supply.

Bottom Row:
Rig for dive hatches. 5 indicators reading; AFT TORP RM, AFT ENG RM, and the last three unreadable.

Every one of these can be closed manually.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] CGSailor 14 years ago

Concerning the two scenes of Tank starting the Diesels.

Yes it does happen in the later scene as well (First time I noticed that).
At first I thought perhaps that they used already existing alternate and unused footage from filming the earlier scene when he repaired and started the engines but the following shots of the control room had the lights coming back up and that was clearly during the Destroyer chase.

Like other aspects it raises as many questions as it answers though.

Clearly they had batteries at that point and until he started the engines and the lights came on... they had lights on. Almost as if it was a continuity goof.
But I think I know the explanation, See how this sits with you...

Tank.. being only one guy out of what normally would be a whole engine crew shift was unable to cleanly shift power from battery to the diesels in one smooth motion. Therefore power died for a bit as he secured the batteries and then started the diesels. In the vagaries of cutting from shot to shot (part of the filmmaking process) we do not actually see him secure batteries and the power dying, we just see him starting the diesels and power coming back up.
So no goof there.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] CGSailor 14 years ago

I found one other goof.

The following morning after they gain the U-571 and are supposedly heading for Lands End... They are clearly heading SOUTH. Not NNE as the would be had they been going to England. the Sun Was Rising about 20 degrees forward of their Port Beam, indicating they were travelling in a southerly direction and the Sun was in the East. The Sun SHOULD HAVE BEEN rising off their starboard beam.

Whiole Cannon-shooter1 found a good one in the Christmas tree, I found it was not the only time as well.

There were several instances where the idicators showed rigged for dive yet clearly they were not.

During the gunfight/takeover of the U-571 the Americans came in via the Tower Hatch and it was open. yet once inside the control room the indicators showed no red lights (as there should have been with the hatch open.)

And again the very same thing when the scouting plane showed up. The Bridge was manned and the tower hatch was again open yet as Lt. Tyler passes through the control room on his way topside the indicators were once again showing all white. There should have been multiple reds this time as not only was the tower hatch open but they were running on Diesels at this point as well and thus were rigged for surface operations.

As to your Nearest land possible goof... On review I think not. Lands end was the nearest FRIENDLY landfall. The Coast of France was closer but at this time was still all in German control. The Coast of Greenland was further away and Iceland was further north. England was the correct choice.

So we got...

1) MULTIPLE goofs with the hull opening indicator

2) Travelling S when should be going NNE

3) Unable to charge and travel at the same time INCORRECTLY REGARDED AS A GOOF

4) Crewman yelling "Blowing Negative" when in fact the Negative tank had to have already been blown dry.

5) Sounding the Dive alarm 3 times rather than 2. (3 times indicates surfacing)

6) Props counter rotating normally when one was supposed to be backing thus the props should have been turning in same direction.

NOTE: I did check other scenes and at all times the props were correctly shown counter rotating so the film-makers knew the correct way, they just inserted a shot of the sub in all ahead, forgetting that one was supposed to be backing.
Even in the first DC scene it correctly showed the STRB screw stopped as ordered by the Kaleun.

7) In the begining, even if the destroyer steamed off at full power for the horizon immediately after conducting the last Depth Charge attack, the Destroyer should have still been in visual range once the U-571 made the surface. At full power it would have taken at least 30 minutes or more for the Destroyer to disappear over the horizon.

8) Destroyers make multiple passes over a target. dropping charges in a pattern over the target area and then circling back again for another run. From the sub's perspective a DC attack would have a few at distance and several close by followed by a few more at a distance. There would be a lull in the attack as the destroyer lines up for another attack and then the pattern repeated. The film shows the attack as if the destroyer was at dead stop directly over the sub and continually raining DC's on top of it. the film shows too many charges, too close and too continuous for a realistic attack pattern.

Already mentioned in the Goofs section is that any of those charges shown in the film exploding close to the hull would have instantly killed the sub.

So we got 8 goofs not already mentioned in the goofs section... any others?

Don't know if it is mentioned or not already in goofs but the S-33 exploding was unrealistic... Clearly planted explosives going off throughout the ship... not the result of a single torpedo hit. (even considering secondaries)

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] michaelnewman01 14 years ago

Yeah, I was actually trying to point out the "South" goof earlier as opposed to the nearest land; I figured that was England.

As a note, the DC drop pattern was wrong, but especially early on in the war, destroyers didn't carry large numbers of depth charges, so the length of the DC attack might- MIGHT- be accurate.

(Placeholder)

reply

[–] CGSailor 14 years ago

A typical US or British Destroyer during that time frame (1942) carried around 40 DCs and had one or two racks and maybe two throwers.

DC racks had could carry 10-12 Charges at the ready. Two racks would hold 20-24 of the 40 total the DD had aboard.

The rest were used in the throwers, usually Y guns (K Guns becoming standard about 1942).

A Typical pattern was around 6 to 10 charges laid down slightly in advance of the subs position, allowing sink time to place the charges at the subs position.

The DD is moving at a quick rate, 10+ knots, to clear the area to prevent damage from it's own charges going off.

A DD does not just travel back and forth continuously dropping charges at intervals. They localize the Sub, then make an attack run, dropping the pattern in the estimated correct position.

Out of a 6-10 charge pattern, hopefully 3 or 4 will be close enough to damage the sub. The destroyer must then double back and relocate the sub and make another attack run.

The film shows the sub enduring near constant DC's at extremly close (instant killing) range for several minutes and with anywhere from 15 to 20 charges all going off in the space of about 1 minute or so.

It did this with the Germans in charge of U-571 and did this twice during the German destroyer attack on the American controlled U-571.

Except for a quick bow-on view, the allied destroyer was never shown, unknown as to exact type.
The German DD at the end was shown as only having 2 DC racks, No projectors.

The only way for such a pattern to be done as shown in the film would have been for the DD to park dead stop directly over the sub and loose every charge ready in both racks all at once.

REDICULOUS!
Not to mention suicidal for the DD as well!

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] michaelnewman01 14 years ago

Yeah, and I also found it amazing that the German captain wouldn't have been paying attention enough to realize there was a destroyer closing at high speed on him until it was <1500 yards away.

This is one that has been staring me in the face...wow

During the final run away from the destoryer on the surface, Chief Klough admonishes Eddie: "Watch your bow planes!"

Eddie replies "Aye, sir, watching my bow planes." As far as I know, Chief Petty Officers have never been addressed as "sir". Today some of them get pretty bent out of shape if you mistakenly address them as sir...

I'm pretty sure it was probably the same in WWII. Now Eddie addressing Klough as sir probably wouldn't have set him off, being as they had more important things to worry about--but why would he do that in the first place? Stress? Or a goof.

reply

[–] CGSailor 14 years ago

Yeah, and I also found it amazing that the German captain wouldn't have been paying attention enough to realize there was a destroyer closing at high speed on him until it was <1500 yards away.

In all fairness it could have happened just that way.

They were probably aware of escorts, in fact the hour prior to the actual start of the film was probably used penetrating inside the ring of escorts to include this very destroyer. All we see is the final setup and shooting of the torpedoes at the very start of film. It was probably the torpedo explosion that alerted the outside picket that a Sub was inside his screen and the destroyer turned in and also traced the torpedo wake back to the firing point where there so happened to be a periscope head sticking out of the water. Note the Kaleun was using the Sky scope rather than the attack scope which has a larger head (better light transmission in dark) and is more easily spotted.

It was this known destroyer suddenly turning in on an attack run that the Hydrophone operator alerted on. Not an unknown destroyer suddenly appearing... though the film does give that impression.

As to the "Sir" issue.

Yes, you do not call an enlisted man sir, even a very senior one such as the Chief. And yes you will be chastised for doing so normally. Sometimes when it comes to respected and senior men it just sorta slips out sometimes especially in times of stress. Also at such times it will not be remarked on or the younger enlisted chastised for it because frankly, they have more important things to worry about (like surviving combat). During routine times, you can rest assured something would have been said.

So.. It does happen in real life so it is not a "Film goof". It is however a goof by the sailor "In-character"

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] CGSailor 14 years ago

I submitted the new goofs discovered and discussed in this thread. To date only ONE has been added:

Errors in geography: After Tyler decides to head for Lands End (England) the next morning shows an exterior surface shot of U-571 running on the surface at dawn. The sun was rising a few degrees forward of their port beam, indicating that U-571 was heading south, not NNE as they would if heading to Land's End from their Mid-Atlantic position.

I don't understand their reluctance to add the others, especially the errors with the Hull Opening Indicators.

What I submitted as goofs:

Factual Mistake: Several times throughout the Film the Hull Opening Indicator was shown to be rigged for dive when in fact the sub was not in such a state. During the firefight in the control room the indicator showed all white even though the tower hatch was open. When the scouting plane showed up, again the tower hatch was open and the ship was running on Diesels yet as Tyler passed through the control room going topside the indicators were all white. And finally the same is true when they surface in the race from the German destroyer, They started up the diesels and the indicators still showed white.

Errors made by character: When U-571 loses depth control at 200m after the final severe depth charging and they struggle to regain the surface one of the crew yells out "Blowing Negative" This cannot be true as the negative tank must be already blown dry to begin with. Negative is kept dry at all times except when making an emergency fast dive. At all other times the Tank must be dry because the sub cannot maintain a level depth with it flooded. Since they had leveled off at 200m the tank must have been dry.

Factual Mistake: During one scene Tyler calls for backing the Starboard shaft (to assist in turning) The film shows a closeup of the prop reversing and a following shot shows both shafts turning counter to each other. This is in fact the normal condition for both shafts in an ahead condition. The Props do turn counter to each other to offset any torque. With one shaft reversed, both props should have been turning in the same direction.

Factual Mistake:During the initial allied depth charging of the U-571 in German hands at the beginning of the film, The German captain orders an emergency ascent immediately after the worst DC attack. The Sub surfaces minutes later to an empty ocean. Even had the Allied destroyer taken off for the horizon at flank speed upon dropping the final charges, the destroyer would still have been very close by at the time the U-boat surfaced.

Factual Mistake: Nearly every Depth Charging scene shows a sequence of Depth Charging that was impossible for the destroyer to lay down. A DD does not just travel back and forth laying a constant stream of charges. It locates the sub, makes an attack run, and drops a pattern of charges (10-12 or so) near the probable location and moves on circling back to line up for another run. As shown in the film, the DD would have to be parked directly over the sub and loose every charge it had aboard to create the near constant hammering of 30-40 charges as shown in the film. Not only impossible, but suicidal for the DD as well.

Only the error in geography was added yet all these others are just as valid.

I also submitted several which were listed goofs that either needed to be deleted or changed to incorrectly regarded as goofs:

One that needed to be deleted in my opinion was one concerning the German destroyer was operating beyond its operational range.

While true that no German destroyer would have been in that part of the ocean, that was due to the Allies controlling that part of the ocean, not because the destroyer was incapable of reaching it due to range limitations.

I also want to discuss this other one I submitted as an "incorrectly regarded as a goof".

there are two goofs related to the Resupply sub:

German resupply submarines, the Type XIV, were not equipped with torpedoes, but anti-aircraft guns. Thus, the S33 would have succeeded in its mission and left without the Germans being able to retaliate, though able to inform command that the Enigma was compromised.

and...
Both the S-33 and U-571 come under torpedo fire from the German resupply submarine. These U-boats did not have torpedo tubes and would only carry torpedoes as ammunition for the standard U-boats.

I think both of these are incorrectly regarded as goofs because they only hold true of the Type XIV Milch Kow subs which were purpose built as resupply subs.

While the third sub was repeatedly referred to as "the resupply sub", there was no mention of it being a Type XIV. In all likelihood it was a Type IX which at the time of the emergency, was ready for sea and thus they added some engine spare parts and extra engineering crew to at the last minute and sent it out to rendezvous with U-571. It is an incorrect assumption on the part of the viewers that the sub is a Milch Kow. Resupply sub in this case refers to the sub's mission, not it's type.

What do you think concerning the Resupply sub question?
UPDATE: I just rechecked the goofs page, rather than altering those two to incorrectly regarded as goofs, imdb simply deleted them.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] michaelnewman01 14 years ago

That's naggled me a little bit, too. What I find is that sometimes people are so wrapped up in the mystique of military procedure that they assume any deviation from it is a blatant error.

People will say things like, "The Germans had a submarine for resupply duties. That the ONLY submarine they would use, and everything else is completely wrong."

In wartime, often enough, you use the tools you have available...

At any rate, the Germans seemed willing enough to believe that S-33 was the resupply sub, even though it differs in size and shape from the Milch Kow.

I'm not saying the type of resupply U-boat depicted wasn't an error; but I don't think any can difinitively say it was, either.

"You feel the way the boat moves? The sunlight on your skin? That’s real. Life is wonderful."

reply

[–] CGSailor 14 years ago

IMDB still has not added the other goofs we found. the only thing they did was add the one goof about heading south rather than to lands end, and to delete the goofs concerning the Milch Kows. all those others we found are still not added though they are clearly goofs, mainly the Christmas tree goofs.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply