Movie Theater Gallipoli - The Australian Band of brothers

C4N4DIAN

Sergeant of the Hide
Full Member
Minuteman
Aug 16, 2019
159
72
For those that enjoyed Band of brothers, The Pacific, or generation Kill.

This Autralian gem is a Must Watch. Amazing miniseries showing an underdiscussed perspective :

And you can watch it here for Free :

 
I actually made it through the 1st episode this morning after work. I'm on the fence so far on whether I'll make it through the 2nd. Appreciate ya tossing it out there. Just don't know if it's gonna keep my interest long enough to finish it.......
 
Yay ! Glad you liked it . I thought it had a similar pacing & production value to band of brothers.


And ya know, I went into thinking Band of Brothers, since that's what you likened it to. I've seen Band of Brothers maybe 4 or 5 times now. I loved that series and I believe they set the bar extremely high with it. Hence I had HUGE expectations for this. It's good and done well I think, and you're right, it does kinda parallel BOF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drglock
If this is still available to watch, I think I've found my new treadmill entertainment for a while. Didn't know this miniseries existed and I'm eager to give it a try. For a moment I thought you'd meant the 1981 Mel Gibson movie, though.

Except my phone really doesn't want to cooperate with the website and there was way too much background noise in the gym for me to hear so... guess I'll just watch it at home.
 
Last edited:
Im watching episode 4, at the 36 minute mark.

The main character is picking up the sniping role, and he seems to have his rifle modified with a small glass plate at the front sight, perpendicular to the bore.

Also, he appears to have a different rear sight.

Is anyone familiar with this setup?

 
Im watching episode 4, at the 36 minute mark.

The main character is picking up the sniping role, and he seems to have his rifle modified with a small glass plate at the front sight, perpendicular to the bore.

Also, he appears to have a different rear sight.

Is anyone familiar with this setup?



I would like to know as well. How far have we progressed haha.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Davo308
Great series. It motivated me to buy the book it is based on. (Haven't gotten it yet.)
Also spoke to a friend in Aus. He said they still remember the battle every year.

Battle of the Nek. Wow, those guys were brave. Unbelievable that degree of bravery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1J04
Great series. It motivated me to buy the book it is based on. (Haven't gotten it yet.)
Also spoke to a friend in Aus. He said they still remember the battle every year.

Battle of the Nek. Wow, those guys were brave. Unbelievable that degree of bravery.

Always wondered how was the book, let me know what you think of it.
 
Im watching episode 4, at the 36 minute mark.

The main character is picking up the sniping role, and he seems to have his rifle modified with a small glass plate at the front sight, perpendicular to the bore.

Also, he appears to have a different rear sight.

Is anyone familiar with this setup?



There was a post in the "Vintage" section awhile ago about a WWI sight set up for the Lee Enfield.

It was kind of a magnifier of the standard sights to give better accuracy.

If you can screen shot it and post in the Vintage Im sure you will get your answer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1J04 and Davo308
There was a post in the "Vintage" section awhile ago about a WWI sight set up for the Lee Enfield.

It was kind of a magnifier of the standard sights to give better accuracy.

If you can screen shot it and post in the Vintage Im sure you will get your answer.

yes. I recall Ian from Forgotten weapon making a video on a similar system a while back.
 
Always wondered how was the book, let me know what you think of it.
So to reply to your question, Gallipoli by L.A. Carlyon is excellent. It is long, but the writing and action keeps you interested. It covers much of the strategic discussion that lead to the decision to invade, including an excellent account of the naval action leading up to the ground fighting. I was very interested to read about the Turkish defensive preparations, essentially under the leadership of a German, von Sanders, who I think won the battle with his reconfiguration of the defensive positions. Like the movie, you really feel for the soldiers involved in this battle, all the more so after reading about his military commanders' repeated blunders. The author, an Australian, knows he is telling one of the most important 'myths' in his country's short history, and his book is an outstanding contribution to that challenge. If you liked this extensive movie and what to understand more (a lot more), this book is for you.

Picture of the book, which I thought was a great cover:
1569347289964.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: BallisticPrimate
Thanks for the heads up. I will definitely check it out. I liked the older movie with Mel Gibson in it. How they did it back then is beyond me; jumping out of the trenches and running across "open" fields assaulting other trenches! Damn! I'm glad tactics changed when I was in the Army.
 
Thanks for the heads up on this one. I just watched all 7 episodes over the last 2 nights.
As an Australian and ex soldier is was a good insight as to what happened as opposed to the perception you have of the way things were.
Overall I was really impressed, especially for an Aussie made mini series lol
 
Will have to check this one out. The role of Anzac in the war and the overall effects of it on Australia and New Zealand is woefully under appreciated in America.


Of course it is.

We are a sovereign country with an elected govt.

Australia/New Zealand were much more so "obligated" to the Empire at that time.

Australia and New Zealand suffered greatly in treasure - human and otherwise - by allowing Britain to use their man power.

Id need to study more if the use of ANZAC forces at Gallipoli was a case of "expendability" or underestimating an enemy.

When the US entered WWI Pershing ensured its forces were going to be under American command. He saw what had happened under allied command from 1914 to 1917 and I don't think he wanted part of that meat grinder.
 
Of course it is.

We are a sovereign country with an elected govt.

Australia/New Zealand were much more so "obligated" to the Empire at that time.

Australia and New Zealand suffered greatly in treasure - human and otherwise - by allowing Britain to use their man power.

Id need to study more if the use of ANZAC forces at Gallipoli was a case of "expendability" or underestimating an enemy.

When the US entered WWI Pershing ensured its forces were going to be under American command. He saw what had happened under allied command from 1914 to 1917 and I don't think he wanted part of that meat grinder.
There was certainly some pressure from the British Empire on Australia to participate, but they were a sovereign nation at the outbreak of WWI the same as the US. That being said, I'm definitely not an expert on the politics and powers of the British Empire around the turn of the 20th century.

Here are some rough numbers on Australia's participation in WWI (keeping in mind they had been a sovereign nation for about 13 years at this point:

Total population: 4,949,000
Males between 18-44: 1,077,000
Number enlisted*: 417,000 (8.4% of total population, 38.7% of adult males)
Number KIA: 60,000 (1.2% of total population, 5.6% of adult males)
Total KIA, WIA, and POW 216,000 (4.4% of total population, 20.1% of adult males)

*There was no conscription for foreign service in Australia during WWI. All participants were volunteers.

To put that into context, about 10% of adult males in the US enlisted (another ~13% were drafted), 0.6% were KIA, and about 1.6% were KIA, WIA, or POW.

None of this is in any way to diminish the sacrifices of US troops or the impacts on the US populace from WWI, just putting into perspective how much the war rocked an infant nation. Also, these are rough numbers derived from multiple sources, so definitely don't quote me on these, but they illustrate the point nonetheless.
 
There was certainly some pressure from the British Empire on Australia to participate, but they were a sovereign nation at the outbreak of WWI the same as the US. That being said, I'm definitely not an expert on the politics and powers of the British Empire around the turn of the 20th century.

Here are some rough numbers on Australia's participation in WWI (keeping in mind they had been a sovereign nation for about 13 years at this point:

Total population: 4,949,000
Males between 18-44: 1,077,000
Number enlisted*: 417,000 (8.4% of total population, 38.7% of adult males)
Number KIA: 60,000 (1.2% of total population, 5.6% of adult males)
Total KIA, WIA, and POW 216,000 (4.4% of total population, 20.1% of adult males)

*There was no conscription for foreign service in Australia during WWI. All participants were volunteers.

To put that into context, about 10% of adult males in the US enlisted (another ~13% were drafted), 0.6% were KIA, and about 1.6% were KIA, WIA, or POW.

None of this is in any way to diminish the sacrifices of US troops or the impacts on the US populace from WWI, just putting into perspective how much the war rocked an infant nation. Also, these are rough numbers derived from multiple sources, so definitely don't quote me on these, but they illustrate the point nonetheless.

Your response was measured and respectful beyond that where you need to be. A gentleman I assume.

Yes the impact of WWI on ANZAC in comparison to the Us was huge.

Sadly a bigger part of the US population looked on the war as good business while those few earning the profits were dying miserable deaths.

Still as a member of the Commonwealth ANZAC had an expectation of obligation to Britain. I think it was stronger than either you or I understand and some knowledgeable historian will step in to educate me anyway.

I think it took WWII when Britain was powerless to offer ANZAC anything in support when they were threatened by the Japanese, and all the ANZAC manpower was in North Africa, that people really began to understand the relationship with Britain was one sided.

Any chance your great gram had a fling with a First Mar Div or Second Mar Div Marine and you have a little yank in you? All those lonely ANZAC women were good to the Corps post Guadalcanal I read.
 
Your response was measured and respectful beyond that where you need to be. A gentleman I assume.

Yes the impact of WWI on ANZAC in comparison to the Us was huge.

Sadly a bigger part of the US population looked on the war as good business while those few earning the profits were dying miserable deaths.

Still as a member of the Commonwealth ANZAC had an expectation of obligation to Britain. I think it was stronger than either you or I understand and some knowledgeable historian will step in to educate me anyway.

I think it took WWII when Britain was powerless to offer ANZAC anything in support when they were threatened by the Japanese, and all the ANZAC manpower was in North Africa, that people really began to understand the relationship with Britain was one sided.

Any chance your great gram had a fling with a First Mar Div or Second Mar Div Marine and you have a little yank in you? All those lonely ANZAC women were good to the Corps post Guadalcanal I read.
Yeah, I definitely don't have a good grasp on the political climate of the time, and I'm sure Australia felt a significant obligation (though, granted, through various treaties, the US was pretty damn obligated as well).

And to be clear, I'm about as American as they come. I spent about 4 months last year living among the Aussies, and there's a fantastic exhibit at the Melbourne Museum specifically about WWI. Gave me a whole new appreciation for their sacrifice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmclaine