Pressure

[Paul Nuttall]

OK, saw this Tuesday and 'not bad'....

Compresses some timelines such as Stagg's appointment as Chief Meteorological Officer, SHAEF, but it does have to get it all into the film.

Eisenhower getting very very angry with Stagg at the time he did....didn't happen then, if it ever did, but again have to compress things.

Would be interesting to know how accurate the film's portrayal of the US team being fixated on analogs was ....it was like this in 19XX and again in 19XX so it will be like this on June 5th....to the exclusion of analysing realtime data that the film suggests was the case.

The storm did appear very quickly....during a church service...but again, have to compress things for the film.

Casting pretty good.

Brendon Fraser plays a good Eisenhower.

Andrew Scott plays Stagg the way he seems to be described.

Damien Lewis as Montgomery was a very good pick.

Con O'Neill (two l's) as Leigh Mallory...never heard how Leigh Mallory spoke so not sure how close this was....

The scenes on the beaches could have come from Saving Private Ryan....a few could actually have been from Saving Private Ryan. I know its going to be difficult to do anything different after that film but its the first thing I thought.

[Nick Sumner]

I was disappointed. Andrew Scott and Kerry Condon were completely believable as people of that era, but the rest of the actors less so. Damian Lewis as Montgomery and Brendan Frasier As Eisenhower overacted (or were overdirected).

[Nik_SpeakerToCats]

Is there adequate mention of how combination of lost weather-ships and severe U-Boot attrition left the Germans almost blind to incoming Atlantic weather ??

IIRC, the few weather-ships were meticulously hunted, sunk, while U-Boots were routinely 'HuffDuffed', partly due to their routine weather reports...

[Paul Nuttall]

Is there adequate mention of how combination of lost weather-ships and severe U-Boot attrition left the Germans almost blind to incoming Atlantic weather ??

IIRC, the few weather-ships were meticulously hunted, sunk, while U-Boots were routinely 'HuffDuffed', partly due to their routine weather reports...

I did see an article a few weeks before it was shown here that suggested that the Germans had far more knowledge of the weather than they are typically shown to have......I only skimmed through it so cat remember the details all that well.....or how it explained how the German had this knowledge.

[MikeKozlowski]

Is there adequate mention of how combination of lost weather-ships and severe U-Boot attrition left the Germans almost blind to incoming Atlantic weather ??

IIRC, the few weather-ships were meticulously hunted, sunk, while U-Boots were routinely 'HuffDuffed', partly due to their routine weather reports...

I did see an article a few weeks before it was shown here that suggested that the Germans had far more knowledge of the weather than they are typically shown to have......I only skimmed through it so cat remember the details all that well.....or how it explained how the German had this knowledge.

...FWIW - Mark Felton has a video where he shows (what I think is) convincing evidence that some - stress the SOME weather stations in Northern Greenland were still operating by June of 44. If accurate, they most definitely weren't in the blind on forecasting.

Mike

[Paul Nuttall]

Is there adequate mention of how combination of lost weather-ships and severe U-Boot attrition left the Germans almost blind to incoming Atlantic weather ??

IIRC, the few weather-ships were meticulously hunted, sunk, while U-Boots were routinely 'HuffDuffed', partly due to their routine weather reports...

I did see an article a few weeks before it was shown here that suggested that the Germans had far more knowledge of the weather than they are typically shown to have......I only skimmed through it so cat remember the details all that well.....or how it explained how the German had this knowledge.

Think I found the article again, though it was written in 2020...

Right for the Wrong Reason?: A New Look at the 6 June 1944 D-Day Forecast by a Neutral Swede
Anders Persson

Online Publication:
01 Jul 2020

Print Publication:
01 Jul 2020

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journ ... 180311.xml

Abstract

There are at least three popular perceptions surrounding the weather forecast for the D-day landing in Normandy, 6 June 1994: 1) that the Allied weather forecasters predicted a crucial break or “window of opportunity” in the unsettled weather prevailing at the time; 2) that the German meteorologists, lacking observations from the North Atlantic, failed to see this break coming and thus the invasion took the Wehrmacht by surprise; and 3) that the American forecasters, guided by a skillful analog system, predicted the favorable conditions several days ahead but got no support from their pessimistic British colleagues. This article will present evidence taken mostly from hitherto rather neglected sources of information, transcripts of the telephone discussions between the Allied forecasters and archived German weather analyses.
They show that 1) the synoptic development for the invasion was not particularly well predicted and, if there was a break in the weather, it occurred for reasons other than those predicted;
2) the German forecasters were fairly well informed about the large-scale synoptic situation over most of the North Atlantic, probably thanks to decoded American analyses;
and 3) from the viewpoint of a “neutral Swede,” the impression is that the American analog method might not have performed as splendidly as its adherents have claimed, but also not as badly as its critics have alleged. Finally, the D-day forecast, the discussions among the forecasters, and their briefings with the Allied command are interesting not only from a historical perspective, but also as an early and well-documented example of decision-making under meteorological uncertainty.