Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

Haha, you are mentioning the two worst war movies ever. I can recommend a good war movie, the Unknown Soldier. A story about a Finnish machine gun company during the Finnish-Russian war 1941-1944. The movie is based on the novel by the Finnish author Vienno Linna. The Finns have made three versions of it, the first one was made in the 1950s, and then two remakes, one in the 1980s and the latest one in 2017 when Finland celebrated its 100 years as an independent country

The trailer (2017)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOPTno2xVqY

I am pretty sure I have seen the 80s version of that movie, it seemed ok.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I am pretty sure I have seen the 80s version of that movie, it seemed ok.

The latest version of it is shorter than the one from the 80s, which is about 4 hours long if I remember correctly.

I have seen 1917 now and I'm not impressed.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

The latest version of it is shorter than the one from the 80s, which is about 4 hours long if I remember correctly.

I have seen 1917 now and I'm not impressed.

I will bite, what is wrong with it?

I didn't like it either primarily because the plot was the same as every other movie just set during WW1, it had little realism.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I will bite, what is wrong with it?

I didn't like it either primarily because the plot was the same as every other movie just set during WW1, it had little realism.

I did a rookie mistake and had too high expectations of it when I read reviews of the movie. The depictions of the trenches and the waste of war in the no man's land were well done. I didn't like the story, I know they used runners to send messages between different units or between commanders. I don't have any problems with it, but I expected to see something more of the carnage we know happened during the First World War when soldiers went over the top and into the eternity.

I expected to see something similar as the beach landing in the Saving Private Ryan, when many reviews compared the 1917 with the Saving Private Ryan (I liked the beginning of the SPR, but even that one crashed, but that is my opinion) I think the Lost Battalion is a better WWI movie than 1917. There is one WWI movie which I haven't seen yet, the Hill and a number.

I would like to see a new take on the TV series ANZAC or something similar as the movie Bloody Foreigner, a movie about the Polish fighter pilots during the WWII

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

I did a rookie mistake and had too high expectations of it when I read reviews of the movie. The depictions of the trenches and the waste of war in the no man's land were well done. I didn't like the story, I know they used runners to send messages between different units or between commanders. I don't have any problems with it, but I expected to see something more of the carnage we know happened during the First World War when soldiers went over the top and into the eternity.

I expected to see something similar as the beach landing in the Saving Private Ryan, when many reviews compared the 1917 with the Saving Private Ryan (I liked the beginning of the SPR, but even that one crashed, but that is my opinion) I think the Lost Battalion is a better WWI movie than 1917. There is one WWI movie which I haven't seen yet, the Hill and a number.

I would like to see a new take on the TV series ANZAC or something similar as the movie Bloody Foreigner, a movie about the Polish fighter pilots during the WWII

My Granddad was on the Somme with the Middlesex Regiment, he was there when Hill 60 blew up. Quite frankly I am surprised he survived. I have booked to see the movie tomorrow evening, I'm not expecting anything historically accurate, I just want to be entertained.

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

My Granddad was on the Somme with the Middlesex Regiment, he was there when Hill 60 blew up. Quite frankly I am surprised he survived. I have booked to see the movie tomorrow evening, I'm not expecting anything historically accurate, I just want to be entertained.

It is amazing the things people can survive, I have looked back over my father's families military history since they arrived in NZ and all I can say is that they are damned lucky.

Two served in WW1 at both Gallipoli and on the Western front as riflemen and neither suffered so much as a scratch although one was hospitalized with pneumonia.
Seven of them served in the 2nd Division during WW2 (6 from the beginning, my father arrived in late 1943) not one of them received a single wound.

The only recorded injury in the entire family was my father getting stabbed in the leg by an angry farmer in Austria after the war before he went to Japan.

Originally Posted by MontyB

It is amazing the things people can survive, I have looked back over my father's families military history since they arrived in NZ and all I can say is that they are damned lucky.

Two served in WW1 at both Gallipoli and on the Western front as riflemen and neither suffered so much as a scratch although one was hospitalized with pneumonia.
Seven of them served in the 2nd Division during WW2 (6 from the beginning, my father arrived in late 1943) not one of them received a single wound.

The only recorded injury in the entire family was my father getting stabbed in the leg by an angry farmer in Austria after the war before he went to Japan.

Do you know exactly when he got pneumonia?

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

Do you know exactly when he got pneumonia?

It would most likely have been early in the winter of 1915 as he recovered and returned to Gallipoli before the evacuation and being shipped to France, I know very little about either of them but I have both of their medal sets which unlike WW2 had their name and ranks engraved on them.

Originally Posted by MontyB

It would most likely have been early in the winter of 1915 as he recovered and returned to Gallipoli before the evacuation and being shipped to France, I know very little about either of them but I have both of their medal sets which unlike WW2 had their name and ranks engraved on them.

I'm asking because I been working on what is called the Spanish Flu. It was a strange pandemic, mostly unknown to the public. People know mush more about the Black Death than they do about the worst pandemic in our history. The pathogen was the H1N1 virus, a flu virus. There are strange things about the disease. It killed a lot of people between 20-35 years old. H-strain viruses and corona viruses don't normally do that. The flu pandemic seems to have three epicenters, that is also unusual. One in Kansas, one in northern France and one in southeast Asia. There was an outbreak of a flu epidemic in France among British/Commonwealth soldiers in 1916-1917, which seem to have been a swine flu type A virus. But something happened in the summer of 1918, I think I know what happened. These three different type of H-viruses meet and exchange genes and mutate to a more lethal type. The Spanish flu killed about 50-100 million people world wide and mostly those in their prime of their lives. Why did it do that and what can we learn from it? The virus attacked the lungs and caused their immune system to go in an overdrive so basically. Their own defense killed them. The reason was, these generations had never been exposed to similar flu viruses. The war caused the recipe for a disaster when huge amount of people were moving around in the world. Now we can move between continent in hours instead of weeks. if or rather when a similar pathogen mutate and became equally lethal as the Spanish flu, we will have a problem. There are two different H viruses that may can cause a huge problem. The H5 and the H7 strains, which are both swine flu and avian flu viruses (most diseases are zoonotic, they transmit from animals to humans) and these two can be dangerous when they have mortality rate of 75%, the Spanish flu had a mortality rate of 20%. The corona virus now isn't a major concern, unless it mutate and the risk for a mutation increases a lot for every person getting infected.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

I'm asking because I been working on what is called the Spanish Flu. It was a strange pandemic, mostly unknown to the public. People know mush more about the Black Death than they do about the worst pandemic in our history. The pathogen was the H1N1 virus, a flu virus. There are strange things about the disease. It killed a lot of people between 20-35 years old. H-strain viruses and corona viruses don't normally do that. The flu pandemic seems to have three epicenters, that is also unusual. One in Kansas, one in northern France and one in southeast Asia. There was an outbreak of a flu epidemic in France among British/Commonwealth soldiers in 1916-1917, which seem to have been a swine flu type A virus. But something happened in the summer of 1918, I think I know what happened. These three different type of H-viruses meet and exchange genes and mutate to a more lethal type. The Spanish flu killed about 50-100 million people world wide and mostly those in their prime of their lives. Why did it do that and what can we learn from it? The virus attacked the lungs and caused their immune system to go in an overdrive so basically. Their own defense killed them. The reason was, these generations had never been exposed to similar flu viruses. The war caused the recipe for a disaster when huge amount of people were moving around in the world. Now we can move between continent in hours instead of weeks. if or rather when a similar pathogen mutate and became equally lethal as the Spanish flu, we will have a problem. There are two different H viruses that may can cause a huge problem. The H5 and the H7 strains, which are both swine flu and avian flu viruses (most diseases are zoonotic, they transmit from animals to humans) and these two can be dangerous when they have mortality rate of 75%, the Spanish flu had a mortality rate of 20%. The corona virus now isn't a major concern, unless it mutate and the risk for a mutation increases a lot for every person getting infected.

Much of what I have read indicates that the 1918 pandemic started as a fairly standard virus which mutated into a more lethal one, I have always assumed that the reason it was so bad amongst that age group and seemed prevalent in military camps is that you had troops coming home from the war who's immune systems were severly comprised by life in the trenches.