PDA

View Full Version : OT: Saving private ryan



ClnlSandersLite
02-15-2005, 01:56 AM
I was watching this film a little while ago, and was just struck with a realization. Remember the scene where the captain was shooting at the tank with his .45 and it blew up? The P-51 flew over head shortly after and it wasn't carrying any bomb racks. So, the question is, where did tom hanks get John Wayne's .45?

uglyohyeah
02-15-2005, 02:05 AM
Don't expect anyone from the States to reply....the TV networks were too scared of the FCC to air it on veterans day. Pathetic.

WTE_DuStA
02-15-2005, 02:15 AM
tom hanks stole the jokers uber pistol and cut the uber barrel off so it would fit in his pants, hence thats how he shot the tank up with an uber pistol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Aztek_Eagle
02-15-2005, 02:54 AM
the question is not why there is not bombracks... but why the bomb did not blow up the p51 it self,,,,... kill the few survivors of the battle... and destroy totaly the bridge http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

carguy_
02-15-2005, 02:56 AM
Maybe he dropped the bombrack before that? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


Naw really,it is proof that .50cal penetrates through Tiger armor. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Art-J
02-15-2005, 03:41 AM
Let's just pretend, the big iron kitty was hit with a HVAR... These rocket racks on 'Stang were really small, so the fact we can't see them in the movie is not so terrible simplification, is it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Regards!

Akronnick
02-15-2005, 04:12 AM
May be it was hit by something other than the P-51, a Bazooka shell or mortar round perhaps. Remeber that Infantry Reinforcements show up at the same time.

Cpt_Jack
02-15-2005, 04:22 AM
Should they have been P-51s in the first place? Wasn't most "tank-busting" at the time done by P-38s and P-47s? I think it would have looked better for a P-38 to zoom overhead - Mustangs are a bit too - predictable? Typical? But I guess typical is what you can expect from a Spielberg movie.

EnGaurde
02-15-2005, 04:27 AM
or maybe it was hollywood bullsh!t

that beach scene was chilling, and made me truly fear conscription.

after that?

meh.

hollywood.

fordfan25
02-15-2005, 04:44 AM
relaaaaax it was a movie not a documentry"i know that cant be spelled right lol" .

how ever i know what happend. tom fired his 45 at just the right angle so that it bounced off the bridge and up into the weak armor or the OMG spot of the tank. im suprised you histoey buffs did not notice it right away. watch that sene again. youll note the small puff of dirt just in frount of the tank the BOOOOM. its right there in front of you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

flyplenty
02-15-2005, 04:52 AM
The .45 bullet must have gone through the driver's vision slit and hit the ammo. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

madsarmy
02-15-2005, 05:06 AM
Documentary<---------------------------------------------------------------------------millon miles apart----------------------------------------------------------------------------->Movie.

You spend to much time looking for what's wrong in this world instead of enjoying what's right in the world.Geeeeeeezz!

ClnlSandersLite
02-15-2005, 05:13 AM
**** man, a couple of you really need to relax. This is not a serious topic. Although true, it's meant to be humorous, not like: "OMG THEY DID IT WRONG!!!11!".

ClnlSandersLite
02-15-2005, 05:15 AM
Either the tigers DM was wrong or the .45 is Ubered!!!11! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

actionhank1786
02-15-2005, 06:06 AM
ah yes, well you see, the P-51 flew at the perfect angle, to skip the .50 cal rounds off the pavement, and into the soft bottom of the tank, then it hit the engine, and the whole thing went BLAM!

fherathras
02-15-2005, 06:09 AM
yep, thats what i do http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

IDF_Raam
02-15-2005, 06:13 AM
In fact the tank was hit the day before, in a different movie, but because of the wet weather the impact only showed a day later.

HotelBushranger
02-15-2005, 06:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>ah yes, well you see, the P-51 flew at the perfect angle, to skip the .50 cal rounds off the pavement, and into the soft bottom of the tank, then it hit the engine, and the whole thing went BLAM! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aaah, but if he was firing .50s, you certainly would have heard them, and seen them kick up the dirt in front of the Tiger. Speaking of, I've got a model of a Tiger 1 riiight here above me in my bookcase, in Russian winter camouflage.

VF-29_Sandman
02-15-2005, 06:16 AM
in this area, all the networks showed it uncut with a warning about language even tho the fcc would more than likely have a field day with fines. in the states, the fcc could fine u big bucks every time u said 1 of their 'blacklisted' words over the open airwaves. some ham operators have had their licenses yanked and heavily fined. there was a time that sections of the 20 meter band were very bad, then all the 'rif-raff' went to 75 and 40 meters.

Kuikueg
02-15-2005, 06:27 AM
A crew member of the tank, in an anxiety shock, was repeatedly banging his forehead against the tank's ammo, till he hitted the soft spot.
It's historical.

NorrisMcWhirter
02-15-2005, 06:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EnGaurde:
or maybe it was hollywood bullsh!t

that beach scene was chilling, and made me truly fear conscription.

after that?

meh.

hollywood. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi,

I couldn't agree more - for the first 30 mins, I thought that I was in for a completely uncompromising [anti-]war film but then it descended into the usual cobblers with the usual 'cavalry turn up in the nick of time' ending.

Several choices as to the tank:
a. As actionhank suggest, Hanks had a .50 pistol and he richochet'd his last round into the tank's soft spot.
b. He actually had a Hispano pistol modelled by Oleg.
c. Someone in the tank had been on a diet of wet grass, onion skin shavings with Tizer and reached critical mass after his 3rd pint of stout hit his stomach.

Cheers,
norris

BSS_CUDA
02-15-2005, 06:55 AM
C'mon ppl everyone know that during a time of war soldiers need to eat, and what do they feed you in the field? K rations. and whats in K rations? BEANS. it's so obvious its simple, the crew had eaten beans the night before and had filled the tanks with shall we say a maliforous odor, and whan Hanks shot his 45 its caused a spark thus igniting the gas and BOOM a German ronco, sheesh I cant believe you didnt see that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Maple_Tiger
02-15-2005, 07:09 AM
I think Tom Hanks is over modeled, and Oleg should fix this issue as soon as possible.

OldPepper
02-15-2005, 07:21 AM
Weren't some P-51's equiped with 'bazooka tubes' for AtoG? P-51D, H and K had rockets.

http://www.flightjournal.com/plane_profiles/p-51_mustang/p-51_mustang_specifications.asp

Mjollnir111675
02-15-2005, 07:27 AM
WHAT tiger??

Norris: or
option d: the tank is actually a post war soviet model that the germans snatched after they used their time machine to retrieve said tank.
At which point they filmed a propaganda film that was intended to be leaked to the allies(and thus 1-C) giving them false information
about the armor strength and weak points of tiger tanks!
But as they were starved of the heavy water which also fueled this time machine it was never to be used again.
A well planned and executed propaganda move as the effects are still echoed through out the world today especially in this forum!
darned nazis and their time machines!

Count the roadwheels. Do they overlap? Is a tiger in fact deisel? Are the commanders hatches accurate? Is the silhouette even near correct?
If you answered no to atleast one of the above the jury is in: NOT A TRUE TIGER!!

"The belly on my tiger is itchy. Can you please scratch it with your 50 cal.?!"

LEXX_Luthor
02-15-2005, 07:29 AM
All very fun and interesting, but seriously Tom's last pistol bullet richochet (or "Bounced") off the sloping armour of the Tiger and the bullet flew into the sky. There the bullet hit the approaching P~51 but Bounced off and went down into the less well armoured top of the Tiger where it hit a 88mm shell warhead. By then the bullet lost enough energy that it failed to Bounce off the 88mm shell and instead penetrated the shell and blew it up as well as the Tiger (and almost Tom too).

Mjollnir111675
02-15-2005, 07:39 AM
Aww Lexx.."sloping armor" on a tiger? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif <Say it aint so!!)

NorrisMcWhirter
02-15-2005, 08:02 AM
Hi,

LEXX: you missed a bit out. The Hank's "magic bullet" was the one that travelled forward in time, entered JFK's body in Dallas, then flew back out again, into the wormhole to 194x and destroyed the tank.

How do I know? Oliver Stone said so.

Cheers,
Norris

VMF223_Smitty
02-15-2005, 09:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aztek_Eagle:
the question is not why there is not bombracks... but why the bomb did not blow up the p51 it self,,,,... kill the few survivors of the battle... and destroy totaly the bridge http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As well: Hanks was sitting awfully close to the tank.. Afraid he would have went bye-bye with it. lol

Skycat_2
02-15-2005, 09:26 AM
Lexx,
The fatal flaw in your theory is that Tom Hank's .45 round 'bounced off' the Mustang ... As Oleg has taught us, one small caliber bullet passing anywhere near a P-51D is enough to make its engine seize up and its wings rip off.

According to the script, the Mustang pilots were armed with more of those improvised 'sticky bombs.' As they flew over at treetop level, they simply tossed a couple out onto the Tiger. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I can't be sure, but I think I heard a German crewman yell from inside, "P-51! Cadillac of the Sky!" ... I'm guessing that all the crew scrambled to get a look at the same time, knocking over an 88mm round and causing it to discharge inside the vehicle. Theory, that is.

womenfly
02-15-2005, 09:57 AM
On a little different note;

My Father and uncle Stanley, both in the US Army Corp, hit the beaches in Normandy on the same day. Each one at a different beachfront. Dad was a Medic and Uncle Stan was an engineer. The scenic in the beginning were Tom Hanks is kneeing behind the anti-tank obstacle and the GI that said to him he would have to move, he was going to blow-it-up. That is what my uncle did; he did not make it to see the end of the day. He was only 23 .....

Dad made it through the war. He did not find out about the death of his brother until 2 years later.

I really miss them both .....
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

ClnlSandersLite
02-15-2005, 10:02 AM
Wow, some of these are funny as all hell http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

horseback
02-15-2005, 01:59 PM
It was a reality killer for me too, but for two real life reasons: first, one of the other characters called the Mustangs "tankbusters", a sobrequet I believe limited to the Hurricane Mk IV with the 4 pound guns, which saw limited action over France, or the rocket equipped Typhoons, which were quite common over Normandy. US fighters were limited to bazooka tubes or skip-bombing.

Second, the Mustangs were wearing the colors of the 78th FG, which operated P-47s until November of 1944, I believe. However, they sported the coolest wartime paint jobs ever put on the Pony, so I suspect that it was a case of eye-candy over authenticity. (besides, where ya gonna find a flyable Typhoon?)

cheers

horseback

DmdSeeker
02-15-2005, 05:05 PM
It's still one of the best of the genre; and you guys are taking cheap (albiet justifyable) shots.

I'd rather one S.P.R. than ten of those awfull U537 or whatever it was called films.

SPR was a panache of the soldier experience; it didn't tell lies or try to misportray history like that awfull sub film did.

Shakthamac
02-15-2005, 06:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mjollnir111675:
Aww Lexx.."sloping armor" on a tiger? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif <Say it aint so!!) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The bullet didnt bounce off the armor. It bounced off the Zimmerit.

sukebeboy
02-15-2005, 06:43 PM
Here's a link to all sorts of technical, factual and continuity errors for the film.

http://www.moviemistakes.com/film1114

And here are some funny general war movie cliches.

WAR
You're very likely to survive any battle in any war, unless you show someone a picture of your sweetheart back home.
Every army platoon has at least one, usually black, member who can play the harmonica.
All G.I.s know how to make a still out of a jeep radiator.
If a soldier tries to look up an old buddy who was transfered to different unit, the buddy will be dead, or will die shortly there after.

New replacements always get killed before you can even learn their names.
The hero's weapon is always different from everyone elses.
Every unit has a "Scrounge" who can get you anything from an atomic bomb to a date with the general's daughter for a bottle of cheap scotch, or vice-versa.
The platoon sargeant never has a grenade on him, so he always asks someone else for the grenade, then pulls the pin out with his teeth.

Everyone who joins an airborne outfit doesn't understand why anyone would jump out of perfectly good airplane.

Elite units (Special Forces, Rangers, Commandos) are always recruited from convicts and other socially degenerate segments of society.

Elite units are always considered expendable even though they cost much much more to train and maintain.

Roger, wilco -- over and out. nuff said. Radio transmission are always improper.

The German Army never uses real German tanks.

Cannons, howitzers, and main tank guns NEVER recoil, unless its old documentary footage.

Fox holes never have overhead protection, or grenade pits.

Only the "Japs" and the "VC" bother to use booby traps.

German soldier always wear grey uniforms and jack-boots, though these uniforms were pretty much phased out by mid 1943.

SS soldiers always wear their dress black uniform.

The British Army is only allowed to fight in North Africa, and even then only elite forces are allowed to fight.

Only the U.S. Marines fought the war in the Pacific. No other personnel were involved.


Snipers always know exactly where someone will pop their head out of trench and soldiers in trenches never use mirrors or periscopes, like they did in World War One.

Any kid, or dog for that matter can wonder around through an artillery barrage and not get killed while half the outfit will alway get wiped out.

No one will shoot the hero and the battle will even come to a stand still while the hero cries in agony and curse that "it should've been him" when his best friend steps on the land mine/get blown up/ dies charging the machine gun nest. The battle will resume as soon as the hero gets over his grief and gets angry. The hero will be victorious within 45 seconds of becoming angry.

Any machine gun nest can be approached from behind without dificulty, but not until half the unit has been wiped out.

If soldiers start to eat/drink/change socks/go to the bathroom, they will get orders to move out immediately.

Soldiers will always make a comment about the food, usually something along the line of "I stepped in it but I've never ate it" or "if we feed this to the "krauts" we'd win the war tomorrow".

Soldiers and sailors must have at least on bar room brawl usually followed by a scene where they come to each others mutual aid the next day.

There has to be a scene involving giving chocolate to children or nylons/cigarettes to women in a WW II movie. The soldiers never try to take advantage of the situation by asking for sexual favors in return.

There is also an obligatory scene where a soldier reads a travel brochure about beautiful Italy/Germany/France/Guam/ while the camera pans across the blown up country side.
If the travel guide scene is omitted, you'll be treated with the scene where a soldier comments about how nice everything looks, too bad there's a war going on, he's going to come back when this is all over. He'll be shot by a sniper shortly after this scene.

3.JG51_BigBear
02-15-2005, 07:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by uglyohyeah:
Don't expect anyone from the States to reply....the TV networks were too scared of the FCC to air it on veterans day. Pathetic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Saving Private Ryan was aired in many locations on Veterans Day in the United States. Here in Chicago it was definitely on. All depends on your local.

rcocean
02-15-2005, 07:57 PM
Thought the last 30 minutes of SPR was rather silly. Why defend the Bridge and then try to blow it up. WTF?

As for the Tiger tank, obviously Tom Hanks character recieved the same markmanship training as the AI IL2 bomber gunners. He only needed one shot.

heywooood
02-15-2005, 08:43 PM
nope - all wrong...the tank crew could see Tom Hanks through the mail slot in the front of the tank where the armor is the most slope-afied and, fearing Ben Afflict was not far away shouting "the Tiger tanks armor is too thick for bazookas' we'll have to shoot through the mail slots!"... they committed suicide by igniting a flare and thats how it really happened alot of times for real.

Womenfly - that is a sad story about your uncle and your pops...so many died on those beaches that day...SPR brought that home in a clear and thoughtful way.

actionhank1786
02-15-2005, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by rcocean:
Thought the last 30 minutes of SPR was rather silly. Why defend the Bridge and then try to blow it up. WTF?

-it was the keep the Germans from crossing, not looking at it.

As for the Tiger tank, obviously Tom Hanks character recieved the same markmanship training as the AI IL2 bomber gunners. He only needed one shot.

-plus he emptied his clip

rcocean
02-15-2005, 08:59 PM
The point is they defended the bridge against absurd odds and then retreated across the river to blow it up. In fact they try to blow up the bridge minutes before the calvary arrives.

In RL, they would have crossed the river and blown the bridge when the Tigers appeared at the edge of town, or simply got the hell out, hoping we would capture the bridge intact later.

Skycat_2
02-15-2005, 09:40 PM
The idea was that keeping the bridge would have been good for the Allies, but losing it and allowing the enemy to have it intact would have been bad for the Allies. Plus, I think the objective was to hold the town for as long as possible, and then fall back across the river and destroy the bridge as it became necessary. Did Capt. Miller and the paratroopers know that help was on the way? It seemed they hoped that the main force was coming ... but the 'nick of time' arrival of the fighters and the main force was a thrilling surprise to the audience as well. Victory snatched from jaws of defeat, ensuring that the sacrifices made by the defenders are both noble and worthwhile.

That's the stuff that great hero stories -- and memorable movies -- are made of.

sukebeboy
02-15-2005, 10:04 PM
Maybe it was good for the Allies, but it still doesn't make sense as the American forces at Normandy never faced any German armor. Rommel committed all his armored units against the British and Canadian forces around Caen.

jarink
02-15-2005, 10:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sukebeboy:
Maybe it was good for the Allies, but it still doesn't make sense as the American forces at Normandy never faced any German armor. Rommel committed all his armored units against the British and Canadian forces around Caen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, they did. IIRC, the 17th Panzer Grenadier Div operated in the area just south of Utah. They had a few tanks (mostly reconditioned French garbage and StuGs), but certainly no Tigers!

ClnlSandersLite
02-15-2005, 11:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Here's a link to all sorts of technical, factual and continuity errors for the film.

http://www.moviemistakes.com/film1114 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now, that just takes all the fun out of it. I try to look for these things on my own, like the 3rd+ time that I watch the movie. There are all kinds of things wrong with the movie, half the plot elements are absurd. I must admoit though, that landing was ****ing intense. Especially on the big screen.

cow9th
02-15-2005, 11:31 PM
Actually like most of the important things in world war 2 it was done by use brits, however the Tempest that knocked it out decided to RTB for more gas while the Stangs rolled about showing of for the cameras........... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

woofiedog
02-15-2005, 11:41 PM
Heres the tank profile.
http://www.rzm.com/pvt.ryan/book/atb2.jpg

http://www.rzm.com/pvt.ryan/main/pvtposter.gif

tB_Blueknight
02-16-2005, 06:30 AM
Bottom Line great movie, I liked it so much it,s in my DVD collection and nothing like the beach landing in surround sound to wake you up.

Bearcat99
02-16-2005, 07:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rcocean:
Thought the last 30 minutes of SPR was rather silly. Why defend the Bridge and then try to blow it up. WTF?

As for the Tiger tank, obviously Tom Hanks character recieved the same markmanship training as the AI IL2 bomber gunners. He only needed one shot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think they were to hold that bridge and blow it up only if they couldnt hold it... the allies needed it as much as the Germans..(according to the story anyway) and actually.. there were bomb racks on the Mustang.. go forward frame by frame to the point just before the Mustang does it's roll but while it is still in the upper right hand corner of the screen and you will see them.... it looks like there may have been two on each wing but definitely one on each wing. The thing that gets me is... you would think that you would see some bombs dropping in the subsequent shots of the other Mustangs. You see the explosions but no bombs... I mean.... it wasnt like they were being shot out or anything. We should have seen them fall. It looked like the Hanks character was trying to shoot the driver through the viewing slot...... desperation.

pauldun171
02-16-2005, 07:27 AM
The Mustang didn't kill the tank. If you watch the special features you will find out that it was actually Axle Foley's grandfather of the 32nd armored "The Beverly Hillsman cops" who "stuck a banana in the tailpipe of the tank.

The P-51 overflight was coimcidence and kpt in the film for imagery purposes.

BigKahuna_GS
02-16-2005, 10:45 AM
S!


Saving Private Ryan was a tribute to Speilbergs father (WW2 Bombadier) and all WW2 Vets. The final combat scene with Hanks bullets bouncing off the Tiger tank look alike (T-34) and then the P51 destroys the tank with an explosion, you hear Hanks say "angels on our shoulders" and Ryan calling the P51's "tank busters".

Spielberg in real life is afraid of flying but still uses commercial flights. The P51 is his favorite WW2 fighter that is why it was chosen for the scene over other actual tank busting aircraft. I am not sure but the angel refrence was attributed to something Spielberg's father said to him about some of his combat experiences.

Even with some factual inaccuracies it is still a terrific WW2 movie.

___

Tailgator
02-16-2005, 04:00 PM
shoot that interpreter!

unseen84
02-16-2005, 04:21 PM
Sukebeboy, that list is hilarious.

My favs:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
You're very likely to survive any battle in any war, unless you show someone a picture of your sweetheart back home.

The German Army never uses real German tanks.

Elite units are always considered expendable even though they cost much much more to train and maintain. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

too true!

sukebeboy
02-16-2005, 04:57 PM
The last battle sequence was pretty standard Hollywood WWII fare. G.I.s making a heroic last stand, but it comes off as pretty ridiculous, especially when compared to the opening landing sequence.

Apart from the lack of smoke, the opening sequence seems a very faithful interpretation of the soldier's recollections of the battle.

The final battle sequence was pure pap. There is no way a German mixed unit of SS infantry, heavy armour, and SP artillery would have come into the town in the way depected in the film. The infantry would have sent out reconaissance units and once they determined that the town was held by enemy infantry, they would have pounded the area with mortars, the SP artillery would most likely have joined in and they would NEVER have sent a heavy tank down the main street ahead of the infantry screen.

horseback
02-16-2005, 07:25 PM
What should have happened didn't always happen in real life; they may have been aware that the town was held by a small unit of lightly armed paratroops, or some a--hole with a lot of braid on his hat was screaming at them to stop wasting time and precious ammunition, or it may have been what we call a 'scratch team' put together at the spur of the moment, and suffered from misunderstandings in the rush to take that oh-so-valuable-bridge.

As for NEVER sending a tank unsupported by infantry into the middle of a town, I just finished reading Seven Roads to Hell, by Donald Burgette, a member of the 101st airborne Division who fought in and survived all of that unit's battles in WWII. In the opening phase of the 101st's defense of Bastogne, Burgette's company faced a German armored unit on the outskirts of a village on one of the roads leading into Bastogne and pretty much decimated the supporting infantry and drew the tanks into the village for the Tank Destroyers and Shermans to ambush. There was a heavy fog, and the German tanks had buttoned up when the shooting started, and pretty much never realized that they had lost their infantry screen.

So, in the immortal words of RoseAnn Rosannadanna, "It could happen!"

cheers

horseback

PS-I'd recommend Burgette's "Currahee!" and "Seven Roads to Hell" to anyone interested in the first hand stories of the D-Day airborne operations and the defense of Bastogne. The book about the Market Garden operations was pretty dry by comparison, and I'd skip it.

SeminoleX
02-17-2005, 08:47 AM
I'm thinking the tank crerw saw the Mustang...thought the jig was up....and self destructed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

ruf9ii
02-17-2005, 11:07 AM
in all seriousness, could you put a round down the muzzle of the main gun and hit a chambered HE round? smpathetic detonation?
i've always wondered if this was possible...

rcocean
03-04-2005, 03:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rcocean:
Thought the last 30 minutes of SPR was rather silly. Why defend the Bridge and then try to blow it up. WTF?

As for the Tiger tank, obviously Tom Hanks character recieved the same markmanship training as the AI IL2 bomber gunners. He only needed one shot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think they were to hold that bridge and blow it up only if they couldnt hold it... the allies needed it as much as the Germans..(according to the story anyway) and actually.. there _were_ bomb racks on the Mustang.. go forward frame by frame to the point just before the Mustang does it's roll but while it is still in the upper right hand corner of the screen and you will see them.... it looks like there may have been two on each wing but definitely one on each wing. The thing that gets me is... you would think that you would see some bombs dropping in the subsequent shots of the other Mustangs. You see the explosions but no bombs... I mean.... it wasnt like they were being shot out or anything. We should have seen them fall. It looked like the Hanks character was trying to shoot the driver through the viewing slot...... desperation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point is - we (USA) were on the offensive. We needed the bridge. We established a bridgehead and defended the bridge. Then, Hanks retreats and trys to blow up the bridge. Makes no sense. Would we have blown up the Remangen bridge? (no) Would we have blown up the bridge at Arnhem (no). When you are advancing, you try to capture bridges intact. If you have to retreat, you don't blow up the bridge. You counterattack and hope to recapture it.

Chuck_Older
03-04-2005, 03:32 PM
I know why the P-51s had no bomb racks or rockets


It's quite simple


They are not movie props or CGI aircraft

They are really airplanes. Let's say they were yours.

Are you gonna let them get modified for a movie? Maybe yes, maybe no. The owner obviously didn't.

I'm waiting for the definitive WWII "documovie" from all the "SPR sucked" guys. I can't wait for your film, I'm sure it will be great

Fliegeroffizier
03-04-2005, 04:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rcocean:
...
My point is - we (USA) were on the offensive. We needed the bridge. We established a bridgehead and defended the bridge. Then, Hanks retreats and trys to blow up the bridge. Makes no sense. ...When you are advancing, you try to capture bridges intact. If you have to retreat, you don't blow up the bridge. You counterattack and hope to recapture it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all due respect, that is a Very simplistic view...it's clear you missed the main point of the situation as depicted/explained in the movie:

The bridge was important because the GERMANS Wanted it!! It was THEIR 'only' way to move ARMOR across into the area in which the Allies were consolidating their landing/beachhead(the German armor had been stationed inland from the coastal areas). IF Hanks' unit could hold the bridge, then Yes the Allied forces moving up(including Allied Armor) could cross the bridge and advance the front line...that would be a good Plus-up for the Allies(and among the Original goals.missions of the paratroops).

However, if Hanks could NOT hold the bridge Long Enough for Allied relief forces to arrive, his mission was to ensure German armor could not cross and initiate an Armored attack upon the still-consolidating Allied forces to his rear, thus possibly changing the entire dynamic of the invasion.

It's really not that hard to grasp, IMHO.

DuxCorvan
03-04-2005, 05:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
You're very likely to survive any battle in any war, unless you show someone a picture of your sweetheart back home.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are plenty things that can kill you in a war, like making plans to buy a car, having a date for marriage or praising your mom's cakes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

And why have the Allied always time to say some last words for their families and beloved ones before serenely dying, and Axis people only cries 'aaaaargggh!' and other horrible sounds and die with a grotesque terror grin on their faces? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

BTW, the crew of that tank carried a hot WW2 girl with them. I've heard those girls were EXPLOSIVE. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

rcocean
03-04-2005, 08:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fliegeroffizier:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rcocean:

The bridge was important because the GERMANS Wanted it!! It was THEIR 'only' way to move ARMOR across into the area in which the Allies were consolidating their landing/beachhead(the German armor had been stationed inland from the coastal areas). IF Hanks' unit could hold the bridge, then Yes the Allied forces moving up(including Allied Armor) could cross the bridge and advance the front line...that would be a good Plus-up for the Allies(and among the Original goals.missions of the paratroops).

However, if Hanks could NOT hold the bridge Long Enough for Allied relief forces to arrive, his mission was to ensure German armor could not cross and initiate an Armored attack upon the still-consolidating Allied forces to his rear, thus possibly changing the entire dynamic of the invasion.

It's really not that hard to grasp, IMHO. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me beat this dead horse one more time.

1) We had air supremecy over the Normandy beachhead. THe magical P-51 at the end just as easily could have bombed and destroyed the bridge. Or they could have bombed/destroyed the bridge prior to D-Day. Thats what the USAAF was doing prior to D-Day.

2) If the number 1 priority was to DENY the use of the bridge to German Armor it was stupid of Hanks to get almost all his men killed & then retreat TOO LATE to blow the bridge.

3) Once it became clear the Germans had armour, and outnumbered him the sensible thing to have (and would have been done in real life) is too have retreated accross the river and blown the bridge.

4) Of course, everything in the last battle was absurd. GI's Hitting morter rounds on the ground & throwing them, German troops waltzing into town to be shot down like geese, Tiger tanks charging into an uncleared town AHEAD of the infantry, American tanks/infantry coming in at last moment (didn't anyone see/hear them?), snipers firing from bell towers when they couldnt get down without being killed or being taken prisioner.

Fliegeroffizier
03-05-2005, 12:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rcocean:

Let me beat this dead horse one more time.

Yeah..Me too!

1) We had air supremecy over the Normandy beachhead. THe magical P-51...could have bombed/destroyed the bridge prior to D-Day. Thats what the USAAF was doing prior to D-Day.

They could have and Did bomb some, I agree....but One purpose of the airborne drops was to secure CERTAIN bridges/key points that POTENTIALLY would have been of value in rapidly securing the landing beachhead/foothold...BUT, remember that there was GREAT doubt as to whether the landing would be successful at all!! Of far more concern was being driven back into the ocean by reinforcing German armor rather than the allies making a 'blitzkrieg-like' advance off the beaches into the depths of France

2) If the number 1 priority was to DENY the use of the bridge to German Armor it was stupid of Hanks to get almost all his men killed & then retreat TOO LATE to blow the bridge.

On the contrary, the Movie-Hanks did it exactly right...He delayed the Germans as long as he possibly could, then fell back...He Succeeded in Delaying the Germans from seizing the bridge until the advancing Allies Reached the Bridge!!! Had he simply blown the Bridge when he first arrived and found Ryan and his rag-tag squad of paratroopers, it is true that the Germans would not have gotten it...BUT it would then Definitely not have been then available for the Allies to use to advance(unexpectedly) forward!!

Read my lips: The mission was to HOLD the bridge IF Possible...If NOT possible, then the secondary mission was to deny it to the Enemy!!! Get it?

3) Once it became clear the Germans had armour, and outnumbered him the sensible thing to have (and would have been done in real life) is too have retreated accross the river and blown the bridge.
As I have pointed out, that would have been the easy decision....one that a weak leader would have made....Essentially "take the Easy way out". Your suggestion that it is some "Sensible thing" which should dictate every military action in combat is an indication that you have never been there...which is Very obvious. It is never a question of sensibilities.


4) Of course, everything in the last battle was absurd. GI's Hitting morter rounds on the ground & throwing them, German troops waltzing into town to be shot down like geese, Tiger tanks charging into an uncleared town AHEAD of the infantry, American tanks/infantry coming in at last moment (didn't anyone see/hear them?), snipers firing from bell towers when they couldnt get down without being killed or being taken prisioner.
You have a god point or two...on the other hand, you are way off on some/Most. Do you really think that there were no "snipers" in WWII who put themselves in very precarious locations, from which they possibly/probably might not be able to retreat once the going got tough???


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



I could continue this debate, but it is probably pointless...

PlaneEater
03-05-2005, 01:25 AM
I always thought he was shooting at the detonator for the explosives....

Badsight.
03-05-2005, 02:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ClnlSandersLite:
The P-51 flew over head shortly after and it wasn't carrying any bomb racks.? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>it was an entirely authentic depiction of fifty cal machine gun power is why there was no bomb racks yet the Tiger still exploded

i mean come on , its hollywood , they have never been wrong in the past

when we need to teach our young'ens about WW2 we all can feel 100% assured that by putting on such richly filmed documentarys , such as "Pearl Harbour" & "Saving private Ryan" & my personal favourite "Hogans Heros" , that we will be imparting entirely accurate descriptions & reasons for why WW2 happened & ended the way it did

dont you guys know anything

some of you almost seem as if you trying to come off as being sarcastic or something

Badsight.
03-05-2005, 02:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by actionhank1786:
ah yes, well you see, the P-51 flew at the perfect angle, to skip the .50 cal rounds off the pavement, and into the soft bottom of the tank, then it hit the engine, and the whole thing went BLAM! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>oh come on

as if they "needed" to be bounced off the ground int the soft spot

i mean come on , its a fifty cal

& we all know what gun the plane that WON the war used

i mean jeeeez http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Badsight.
03-05-2005, 03:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeminoleX:
I'm thinking the tank crerw saw the Mustang...thought the jig was up....and self destructed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

now this is what im talking about when i said that some almost come across as being sarcastic or something

flyplenty
03-05-2005, 03:17 AM
Some evidence of the vulnerable spot (http://www.sproe.com/images/screenshots/tiger-08-large.jpg) on the "Tiger tank" in the movie.

You can see that the usual viewport with layered armored glass had suddenly been replaced by a sheet of inferior timber, therefore unable to stop Capt. Miller's .45 bullets. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And here's a Tiger link (http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm), for you Tiger aficionados. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ploughman
03-05-2005, 11:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> They could have and Did bomb some, I agree....but One purpose of the airborne drops was to secure CERTAIN bridges/key points that POTENTIALLY would have been of value in rapidly securing the landing beachhead/foothold... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite so, Pegasus Bridge for one.

In other news, wasn't the "big iron kitty" in the film really a modified T-34 which would mean a pistol would be more than adequate? link to some drivel about a T-34 that was converted to look like a Tiger (http://www.sproe.com/t/tiger-tank.html)

DuxCorvan
03-05-2005, 11:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
I know why the P-51s had no bomb racks or rockets


It's quite simple


They are not movie props or CGI aircraft

They are really airplanes. Let's say they were yours.

Are you gonna let them get modified for a movie? Maybe yes, maybe no. The owner obviously didn't. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, Chuck. But in these days of digital oliphants, terminators, aliens and big green weirdos, to add the racks digitally to the real image would have been a cakewalk for Spielberg's ILM friends. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

J_Weaver
03-05-2005, 12:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ploughman:
In other news, wasn't the "big iron kitty" in the film really a modified T-34 which would mean a pistol would be more than adequate? http://www.sproe.com/t/tiger-tank.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it was, the track system is what gives it away. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Buzzsaw-
03-05-2005, 12:49 PM
Salute

To start with, there were no Tiger's facing the Americans at that time in Normandy. In fact, there was no 2nd SS Panzer as claimed in the movie. They had not arrived yet, and when they arrived in Normandy, they went up against the British and Canadians.

You can see the dispositions of the opposing armies in this U.S. Army Historical map. Note there are ZERO German Panzer divisions facing the Americans.

http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/ww2%20europe/ww2%20europe%20pages/ww2%20europe%20map%2055.htm

Immediately after the invasion, the only troops facing the Americans were static substandard infantry divisions, plus the 352nd and 91st Infantry divisions and the 3rd Falchirmjager Parachute division with some old French Tanks which they had been given to use as a counterattack force. These were the tanks which counterattacked the American Airborne in the days after D-Day.

Subsequent to that, on the 11th and 12th of June, the 17th SS Panzer Grenadier Division arrived on the American Front. This division had zero tanks, only a single battallion of SP Guns, STG-III's. It was not one of the better SS Divisions, no where near the combat effectiveness of the 1st, 2nd, 9th, 10th and 12th SS Panzer divisions which were up against the British and Canadians and which each had 2 battallions of Panthers and Mk IV's, plus attached Tigers and the very best SP and Tank Destroyers, such as the JagdPanther. As well, facing the British were the Panzer Lehr, 2nd Panzer and 21st Panzer.

This was part of Montgomery's plan. He was appointed to plan the invasion, and to commanded all the invasion forces, including the Americans, up till D-Day +21, and in fact commanded till after that. His plan was to tie down the German Panzer divisions with the British and Canadians, while the U.S. troops took Cherbourg and broke out on the right. That was in fact how it turned out in the end. The snide comments made by Hanks and the other officer about Monty "taking his time around Caen", ignore the fact that there were 10+ Panzer divisions facing the British/Canadians and none against the Americans.

It wasn't till August, nearly 2 1/2 months after the invasion, that the Americans faced the SS Panzer's in Normandy at the Mortain counterattack. And in that case, it was the U.S. 30th Division which was defending, the American Parachute divisions were long before withdrawn for refitting and preparation for future drops. And the SS Panzers by then were shadows of their full strength complements, after battling the British and Canadians for 2 months around Caen.

compass1
03-05-2005, 01:16 PM
A deafening silence, Buzzsaw!

Chuck_Older
03-05-2005, 02:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
I know why the P-51s had no bomb racks or rockets


It's quite simple


They are not movie props or CGI aircraft

They are really airplanes. Let's say they were yours.

Are you gonna let them get modified for a movie? Maybe yes, maybe no. The owner obviously didn't. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, Chuck. But in these days of digital oliphants, terminators, aliens and big green weirdos, to add the racks digitally to the real image would have been a cakewalk for Spielberg's ILM friends. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif
I think ILM has lost it's touch.

Fliegeroffizier
03-05-2005, 07:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
....This was part of Montgomery's plan. He was appointed to plan the invasion, and to commanded all the invasion forces, including the Americans, up till D-Day +21, and in fact commanded till after that. His plan was to tie down the German Panzer divisions with the British and Canadians, while the U.S. troops took Cherbourg and broke out on the right..... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROFL !!!!!! Talk about your revisionist history!!! Monty PLANNED to get hung up at Caen... What a joke.

heywooood
03-05-2005, 07:40 PM
Pacific Fibbers....

Why do we always have to have a regular SPR thread ...and why does it always go to hell in a handtruck by the second page...if not the second post?

Sharkey888
03-05-2005, 10:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fliegeroffizier:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
....This was part of Montgomery's plan. He was appointed to plan the invasion, and to commanded all the invasion forces, including the Americans, up till D-Day +21, and in fact commanded till after that. His plan was to tie down the German Panzer divisions with the British and Canadians, while the U.S. troops took Cherbourg and broke out on the right..... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROFL !!!!!! Talk about your revisionist history!!! Monty PLANNED to get hung up at Caen... What a joke. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like Monty would agree to "tying down" German PD's while the Yanks advanced on the right.....VERY REVISIONIST!!!

heywooood
03-06-2005, 01:02 AM
bottom line is Allies won the war....

hammering each other over how it was done is not so relevant today is it?...

Everything happens...
....whether it is for a reason or not depends on who wins, Nez pas?

Since we were two sides of many on the same coin I suggest letting it go. Canada and Australia won the war anyways so I don't know what the fuss is about.

Good job, Allied side.
... Sorry Axis squad....

Chuck_Older
03-06-2005, 07:40 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif
"nez pas" is roughly the equivelant of "anti-nose" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Which is a slight faux pas, n'est-ce pas? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ploughman
03-06-2005, 09:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Canada and Australia won the war anyways <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So every skippy I meet keeps telling me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Sharkey888
03-06-2005, 09:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by heywooood:


hammering each other over how it was done is not so relevant today is it?...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just goes to prove that nothing in history is black or white. Even events from 60 years ago that have been researched, ad nauseum, can be interpreted differently by every side.

Having these kinds of discussions on a public forum is very relevent in free societies today http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DuxCorvan
03-06-2005, 09:33 AM
Come on! Spain won the war -in a very subtle way. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

But, seriously, in the long term, it was Axis that won: now get out from your house and count the Opels and Hondas down the street... you may even have a Mitsubishi in your garage. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

heywooood
03-06-2005, 11:23 AM
Ok Dux...Spain is the winner.

And this thread has become irrelevant in a very public way, Anti-nose?....

Buzzsaw-
03-06-2005, 12:37 PM
Salute

It isn't a matter of interpretation, its a matter of fact.

There was no 2nd SS Panzer division or Tiger tanks up against the 101st Airborne following D-Day, and the section of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN showing this is completely bogus.

Like almost all Hollywood war movies. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Unfortunately a lot of Americans take the movies as fact. As for example, thinking that Patton was a great General, when in fact at best he was a commander who was good at advancing quickly against weak opposition.

Patton is credited with one of his most famous exploit at Normandy, when he supposedly to have engineered the breakout and most of the fighting all by himself.

In fact the Breakout at St Lo, OPERATION COBRA, was planned by General Bradley, and executed by General "Lightning Joe" Collins in command of the U.S. VIIth Corps.

http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/ww2%20europe/ww2%20europe%20pages/ww2%20europe%20map%2062.htm

Only after the German lines were cracked wide open was Patton released, and given the opportunity to advance against basically zero opposition.

When the Germans counterattacked to try to seal off the breakout, it was 1st Army troops who did the real fighting to stop them, not Patton's 3rd Army.

Patton gets the credit for Bradley's planning and other soldier's fighting.

In the Ardennes, Patton is usually given the credit for saving the day too, when again, he was up against the weakest part of the German army, a group of Volksgrenadier divisions, and it was Hodges 1st Army which did the heavy lifting against the Panzer divisions of 5th Panzer Army and 6th SS Panzer Army. It was General Collins again who commanded the counterattack at Celles, where the U.S. 2nd Armoured destroyed the 2nd Panzer Division and broke the back of the German advance. Easy to see from this map:

http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/ww2%20europe/ww2%20europe%20pages/ww2%20europe%20map%2072.htm

The only time Patton was faced with a really tough defence, at Metz in the fall of 1944, he failed completely in his attacks.

Bradley was a much better General.

I'm really looking forward to Tom Cruise starring as an American in the new BATTLE OF BRITAIN movie, and having his win it singlehanded... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Chuck_Older
03-06-2005, 01:53 PM
Buzzsaw-

What is escaping you is that the movie wasn't supposed to be a documentary

For example:

Was there a Captain Miller of the Rangers who was given that mission in real life? Did he find that Private named Ryan in real life? It was just a movie, for Pete's sake

You have to stop thinking that the film was supposed to be a History lesson and understand that while it was in many areas accurate, that shouldn't be taken as proof that you should assume the whole film is an Historical Re-creation.

You meantion the film with Tom Cruise...well, how do you feel about the 1969 film, Battle of Britain? That movie was horrid! They expect me to believe Hispano Buchons were Bf 109s?! One look tells me they aren't 109s, the film is worthless. That aircraft was supposed to have been in use by the Luftwaffe in 1940?? Obviously that didn't happen, so the film must be awful...and those were He-111s? Hardly! You and I both now they were CASAs

Do you see where I'm going with this?

ploughman
03-06-2005, 02:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> What is escaping you is that the movie wasn't supposed to be a documentary <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair enough, it's not like it was taking the historical urine like Braveheart but it was inaccurate. I think Buzzsaw was aware of this which probably inspired him to type...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> this is completely bogus...Like almost all Hollywood war movies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anyway, the attack on Patton was uncalled for, this is an anti-Montgomery thread, or would that be Montgomery Pas?

DuxCorvan
03-06-2005, 02:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
They expect me to believe Hispano Buchons were Bf 109s?! One look tells me they aren't 109s, the film is worthless. That aircraft was supposed to have been in use by the Luftwaffe in 1940?? Obviously that didn't happen, so the film must be awful...and those were He-111s? Hardly! You and I both now they were CASAs

Do you see where I'm going with this? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see. Those aircraft were Spanish versions, and hence, they had been improved and made beautiful to a hardly bearable point. I agree, the film looked futuristic with those examples of utmost advanced engineering... Lucky that the ILM boys did not digitally convert them into those uninspired WW2 barbaric creatures. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

And yes, seriously, that movie is horrid. Women and men use hairstyles and make-up from the 60s -or the future, if you believe Star Trek. I was expecting all the film a Carnaby St. hippy to ride a Spitfire with a goudy tunic and band round his head, crying "Tally ho! this Maria is good!". And, yes, I concede the Hispano and CASA 109 versions are among the ugliest ever made... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Tally ho...!
http://hollywoodcostumesandparty.com/austinpowers/austin2b.jpg

Buzzsaw-
03-06-2005, 02:20 PM
Salute CO

You are ignoring the main issue which is whether or not a film makes every reasonable attempt to be historically accurate:

Was the original film, BATTLE OF BRITAIN essentially true to the events of the time?

Clearly, YES. It portrayed real life events as carefully as possible, given the limitations of the movie making time, (no CGI in 1967 when it was shooting, and very few flying 109E's which could be rented) The battle sequences and encounters were clearly based on real life events, with dialogue taken from actual biographies and histories of the battle.

On the other hand, S.P.R. although clearly an invented situation, was set it in the middle of what was purported to be a historical film. That was how the film was promoted in the media. We all remember the media blitz surrounding its release, with the claim of the "most realistic and accurate battle scenes ever brought to the screen".

In fact, the battle at Omaha Beach in SPR was essentially historically based, (although the Rangers were further to the right) and from that we might assumed that the battle in the advanced position held by the paratroopers might also be based on a historical event.

Instead, as is typical of Hollywood, we were presented with a completely ahistorical event, with all the misleading facts seemingly buttressed by the dialogue of the characters. As in the scene where Hanks and his C/O are supposedly chatting about REAL historical events, ie. about the objectives, what the U.S. Army is doing, what the British are doing, and what enemy units are doing.

It would have been very easy for Spielberg to stick to the facts, there were undoubtably some very heroic actions undertaken by American paratroopers and Rangers in Normandy in the first days after the invasion, but instead he chose to go for hyperbole, and exaggerate completely the situation. This is a shame, and in fact is a stain on the record of a director who has been reasonably true to the facts in previous films, such as SCHINDLER'S LIST.

Don't underestimate the effect films like SPR have on the public. Americans and others form most of their view of the world based on what they see in the Movie theaters and on the tube. If they are presented with a false event, and not told, they tend to believe it is fact.

All of this contributes to the general view of the world that the public has. And it can lead to people misunderstanding how we arrived at the situation which exists in the present time.

My post was intended to pop a few mythical balloons, and encourage people to look past the diet of pablum they are sometimes being fed.

Chuck_Older
03-06-2005, 04:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Don't underestimate the effect films like SPR have on the public. Americans and others form most of their view of the world based on what they see in the Movie theaters and on the tube. If they are presented with a false event, and not told, they tend to believe it is fact.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now this is all too true...the armchair students always beleive the first thing they see on TV...unfortunately they are also the most vocal and opinionated viewers of 'semi-historical' entertainment. In my opinion, this goes straight to what's taught in schools- history, civics, even Social Studies are ignored, virtually, in the US. My Dad is a computer teacher at a grammar school. What does he teach them? He is instructed to teach them things that they are supposed to be learning in calsses like English and Mathematics...but on the PC. It's like a little blackboard. that's great, but they could actually be learning something useful...the School Systems honestly feel that subjects like History aren't worth teaching, it seems...so, as the old saying goes, History is bound to repeat itself- in the 19th century, recittal and retention of facts was considered more important that thinking, future orators were being trained in the US. And now, in the 21st century, the use of technology for the sake of using it is more important than thinking, future consumers in training? Oh, that's a depressing thought


You have some very good points, Buzzsaw

DuxCorvan
03-06-2005, 05:09 PM
How! Are you telling that Emperor Commodo didn't die very soon after killing his father, fighting in the arena against a Spanish ex-general converted into gladiator, that swore revenge? That Marcus Aurelius died of the pest, and Commodo was strangled by his personal trainer Narcissus after a reign of 17 years, victim of a Senate conspiracy?

That medieval Scots didn't wear kilts nor painted their faces? That William Wallace was a long time in prison before his execution, and was not the father of Edward III of England?

That Spanish people don't sweat all the time, don't live in sandy towns full of chicken and don't have a terribly evil look in their eyes?

That the Spaniards don't 'burn the images of our saints to adore them' during the Holy Week (Mission: Imposible 2)? That those images are unvaluable artworks by reputed Renaissance masters? That in those religious processions are not Brazilian 'samba' dancers, as in Rio de Janeiro carnival?

But... it was on TV! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Chuck_Older
03-06-2005, 07:28 PM
All I know is that Spanish women are hot...and probably better for me than the Irish/Italian women I usually pursue

Sharkey888
03-06-2005, 08:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:



Don't underestimate the effect films like SPR have on the public. Americans and others form most of their view of the world based on what they see in the Movie theaters and on the tube. If they are presented with a false event, and not told, they tend to believe it is fact.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you could say that about the whole media-linked world-NOT just the overused stereotype of an American.

And remember MOST people don't care if it's a Tiger or T-34, only WE do because we love history.

Also remember BOB=TORA TORA TORA=The Longest Day but NOT SPR or (gasp) PH http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Hendley
03-06-2005, 08:09 PM
And to add to what Buzzsaw is saying: the myth-making and falsifications seem, sadly, to be a recent trend. Just compare The Longest Day to SPR; the former manages to include stories from all the combatants on D-Day, including the Free French, British, Canadians and Germans, without denigrating anyone's contribution, and was a better movie for it. Or compare Tora Tora Tora, which tells the Pearl Harbor story from _both_ sides (and even had a Japanese director and crew direct all the Japanese sequences) to the asinine Pearl Harbor, of which the less said about the better. A Bridge Too Far, a mostly British story, was a US production.

Sure, Hollywood stuck Steve McQueen and James Garner into The Great Escape, but at least there was some historical justification for having a couple of American characters in a Commonwealth/Free Europe prison camp. If The Great Escape was made in 2000, you can bet it would have taken place in an all-American camp...

Hollywood _used_ to be able to tell stories about all sides of the conflict, but seems to have lost the will to do so.

Sharkey888
03-06-2005, 08:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hendley:
Hollywood _used_ to be able to tell stories about all sides of the conflict, but seems to have lost the will to do so. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's only because the age demographic of who goes to see movies has gone down drastically in the past 30 years. Most moviegoers are only 14 year olds!! Video games make more than Hollywood nowadays!!

heywooood
03-06-2005, 09:29 PM
the youngest ones are the ones that need historical accuracy the most.

Shouldn't that be Hollywoods mandate?...sure - entertainment is entertainment and not meant to be a teaching tool , but when Hollywood attempts to tell a story from human history or based on American history or whichever countrys' history, dont they have any responsibility at all?....

If it is my job as a parent to teach the real story to my kids then I am fighting a two front war...me VS television and the movies....not to metion our public school system which seems bent on removing history as a subject and replaceing 'teaching' with 'training'...the only subject they're worried about lately is 'conformity'.

It would be nice if those folks in Wallyworld would gather a little intelligence on the subject once in a while.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

sukebeboy
03-07-2005, 07:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hendley:
And to add to what Buzzsaw is saying: the myth-making and falsifications seem, sadly, to be a recent trend. Just compare The Longest Day to SPR; the former manages to include stories from all the combatants on D-Day, including the Free French, British, Canadians and Germans, without denigrating anyone's contribution, and was a better movie for it... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were Canadians in The Longest Day? I must have missed that part.

DuxCorvan
03-07-2005, 08:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
All I know is that Spanish women are hot...and probably better for me than the Irish/Italian women I usually pursue <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're a brave man, grampa! I know of many foreign youngsters who need Viagra to keep their Spanish lovemates at home... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Asgeir_Strips
03-07-2005, 11:55 AM
Abou the P 51 We know that The Typhoon and Jug and P38 were the main tank busters. But it could be P51's also, because if a P51 squad was done with his/theirs Fighter CAP they often went down on the deck to look for targets of oportunity, but obiously they wouldn't carry bombs :-P

And i think Spitfires and Tempests also flew ground attack missions during the D-Day and after the D Day if im not mistaking completely....

horseback
03-07-2005, 03:47 PM
Mustangs, like the P-47s, were tasked with bombing during the D-Day period, and carried a couple of 250 or 500lb bombs instead of wing mounted droptanks for the short hop to Normandy, dropped their bombs at assigned locations or targets of opportunity, and then went looking for something to do with all that .50 ammo (NOT killing tanks...).

For the first day or two, Lightnings were assigned fighter cover over the flotilla of Allied ships in the Channel, in the (mistaken) assumption that not even Navy gunners could mistake the twin boom planform for a Messerschmitt or Focke Wulf's...

cheers

horseback

heywooood
03-07-2005, 05:26 PM
Spanish women ARE hot!....but the males are wonky-looking....severe disparity there.

...like a P51...parked beside a link trainer.

FlakMagnent
03-07-2005, 06:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
I know why the P-51s had no bomb racks or rockets


It's quite simple


They are not movie props or CGI aircraft

They are really airplanes. Let's say they were yours.

Are you gonna let them get modified for a movie? Maybe yes, maybe no. The owner obviously didn't.

I'm waiting for the definitive WWII "documovie" from all the "SPR sucked" guys. I can't wait for your film, I'm sure it will be great <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I agree with Chuck on this one. I have a few books that stated that the Allies used many types of planes and flew thousands of sorties on June 6th alone. I have also seen footage of mustangs with rocket rails and .50's killing German Armour. Im sure that every movie ever made about anything that has historical value cant get everything right cosidering WW2 was over 60 years ago. Rifles can be made, fake tanks can take the place of the real thing as long as its used correctly. Wanna see a fake tank? Watch the opening battle in the movie "Enemy at the Gates". Just watch the german panzer shoot a small puff of flame out of its main gun. There are simply some things you cant do on a certain budget.

Hendley
03-07-2005, 07:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sukebeboy:
There were Canadians in The Longest Day? I must have missed that part. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, you must have.