Skorzeny

Hi all, I would like to submit to you part of my project for my PH.D which should start anytime soon. It will mainly deal with Hollywood and the making of accurate WW2 movies. Here's part of an essay I wrote about Saving Private Ryan, which was hailed as "the most acccurate war movie ever made" and Spielberg the man who depicted "how it really was". Bloody But Not History: What's Wrong with Saving Private Ryan The release of Steven Spielberg's epic war film Saving Private Ryan has been accompanied by a near avalanche of critical acclaim and praise for its message, theme and realistic, unforgiving portrayal of combat in the Second World War. From HBO and History Channel specials, to Nightline to Newsweek magazine, the film has been lauded for showing World War Two as it really was. Mr. Spielberg himself has solemnly proclaimed his film's realism and his goal to finally make a film to do justice to the war and the men who fought so courageously in it. The director claims that for the film he "wanted to achieve reality" and "assumed the role of combat cameraman, not the role of artist." Star Tom Hanks has echoed Spielberg, claming "why make a fat fake movie when you can find out what really happened and do it that way."1 Based on the nearly universal acclaim for the film, it would seem Mr. Spielberg has succeeded in his mission to a large degree. No one can doubt that the combat scenes in Saving Private Ryan are the most spectacular, grisly and disturbing ever filmed and that the intensity of the movie grips the viewer from beginning to end. The details of the film are also stunning, especially so in the meticulously recreated uniforms and weapons. This is especially true in regard to the German Tiger tanks that appear in the end of the film, amazingly rebuilt with minute and painstaking accuracy. Yet, as realistic as the combat scenes, uniforms and weapons in the film are, Saving Private Ryan is by no means an accurate portrayal of the Normandy invasion and the fighting that went on there. Indeed, the film does what most movies do when confronted with historical details: it changes and omits them to suit plot and storyline. This fact is not so much evident in the beginning of the film, which depicts the American landings on Omaha Beach, which was recreated with the help of the testimony of many veterans and the distinguished historian Stephen Ambrose. However, as the cast of the film proceeds inland on its search for Private Ryan, reality begins to take a back seat to artistic license. This is especially true at the climatic battle scene at the end of the film, ostensibly fought between the American 101st Airborne Division , the principle characters of the film and a German battlegroup of the 2nd SS Panzer Division. The battle is indeed a fine piece of filmmaking, exciting and horrifying at the same time. It was also a battle concocted straight out of someone's imagination &endash; the 2nd SS Panzer division was nowhere near the front on June 13, 1944. Even if it was, the thought that it could march an armored column in broad daylight into a major attack in the face of American air and naval dominance is pure folly. Further, even if the 2nd SS had somehow been able to mount its attack, it is highly unlikely that it would have attacked in the almost ridiculously inept way the Germans in the film marched to face Private Ryan, Tom Hanks and comrades. Why would the Germans march into a town without first sending reconnaissance probes? Why did Tiger tanks (of which the 2nd SS Panzer division had none2) lead an assault into a burnt out town where they would be singularly ineffective? Why would a vulnerable, open topped vehicle such as the German Marder III, designed to engage tanks at long range, be slowly driven through the town to engage enemy infantry except to provide a convenient target for crafty, Molotov cocktail armed American paratroopers? For all the realism in Saving Private Ryan, it is by no means an accurate depiction of the Battle of Normandy. It has, according to those who fought there (obviously, the best authorities on the subject), recreated combat scenes in effective detail, but the film is not a historical work and while the film is powerful, it is not history. As it stands, those who watch the film, believing they are seeing a true story, are in fact seeing something that is largely the figment of the imaginations of those who wrote and produced the film. While the film's message will remain powerful and the emotions it arouses strong, when one analyzes the film as a piece of history, it falls short and this can only serve to undermine its overall purpose. Where was the 2nd SS Panzer Division? It was odd that the American soldiers in the film mentioned the 2nd SS Panzer division by name, considering the fact that it was nowhere near the front on June 13th, 1944. Better known as the "Das Reich" division, the 2nd SS was training in southern France when the Allies invaded on June 6th. Ordered to move north to the front, the Das Reich division faced an arduous journey in the face of Allied air power, which attacked its road columns constantly as well as the French Resistance, which also sought to disrupt its movement to Normandy.3 On its way northward the division achieved infamy for massacring French civilians in reprisal actions and it was not until June 20 that any of Das Reich's tanks reached the Normandy battlefield.4 When the division did reach the front, it was initially placed in reserve and when it entered action it did so against the British, not the Americans.5 The first week in July was the first time that any elements of Das Reich came into contact with the American army.6 Why the 2nd SS was mentioned in the film and not one of the actual formations facing the Americans is difficult to explain; it may be that a number was selected at random. What really happened? So far as the actual Normandy battle is concerned, the climactic scene in the film is apparently based on the 101st Airborne's defense of the town of Carentan on June 13, 1944. The previous day the town had been taken from the Germans and the German commander, Field Marshal Rommel, ordered the town recaptured, given that possession of the town allowed the two American beachheads, Utah and Omaha, to unify and move on the important port of Cherbourg. The principal unit selected for the attack was the 17th SS Panzer Grenadier Division (usually known by its name "Goetz von Berlichingen") which had just arrived at the front, harassed continually by air attacks. The battle depicted in the film and the actual battle that took place were quite different, however. The film conveys the notion that a few desperate, yet scrappy Americans managed to hold out against a far superior force deep behind enemy lines. The actual battle saw the town of Carentan defended by two regiments of the 101st airborne, supported by tanks, planes and naval gunfire from three battleships. 7 The Americans were also reading the Germans' secret code and knew about the planned attack a day before it happened.8 Thus, the attack was no surprise and hardly the close run affair shown in the movie and it is clear that the facts were altered somewhat in the interest of making an exciting film. Is this bad? Although Saving Private Ryan did not exactly adhere to actual history of the Battle of Normandy, the errors and omissions detailed thus far, have, in actuality, done little to lessen or weaken the impact of the film and its legitimacy as a historical work. It is a film rather than a documentary and a film needs to create atmosphere and dramatic effect. If anything, misnumbering German divisions and embellishing on the facts are errors that annoy no one but carping historical nit-pickers. Where does the film go wrong? Granting that Saving Private Ryan did not follow history exactly, where did it go wrong in its portrayal of the Battle of Normandy? For one, there are two things missing from the film that really &endash; if the film is being billed as a realistic portrayal of the Battle of Normandy &endash; should be there. The first is the decisive role of the American airforce. While it is true that a few P-51s make a dramatic appearance at the end of the film, not one other aircraft is shown flying in the entire film. This is a serious misrepresentation, for if anything defined the key to America's victory at Normandy, it was airpower. In training and experience, the Germans had something of an edge in terms of ground combat over the Allies. At the same time, they had nothing to match Allied air capability and by 1944 the German Luftwaffe had been driven from the skies, giving the Allies complete and undisputed air superiority. As such, the 36 ground attack squadrons of the U.S. 9th Air Force were a constant presence at Normandy &endash; destroying railroads, bridges and marshalling yards, attacking German columns and disrupting all German attempts to reinforce Normandy.9 Field Marshal Rommel himself was seriously wounded by marauding Allied planes and several other German generals were killed.10 Yet, in Saving Private Ryan, this important element of America's contribution is given short shrift by the filmmakers. A possible explanation might be that Mr. Spielberg wanted to portray the odds as facing the Americans as far longer than they actually were. If anything, the odds were stacked against the Germans, as Field Marshal Rommel ruefully noted in a letter home: The battle is not going at all well for us, mainly because of the enemy's air superiority and heavy naval guns…The long-husbanded strength of two world powers is now coming into action. It will all be decided quickly.11 Saving Private Ryan also does little to show the omniscient Allied naval presence. In the time frame of the film, the front was still very close to the sea and Allied ships shelled the Germans mercilessly with naval gunfire at every opportunity. If the German attack depicted in the film had somehow managed to escape bombing from the air, it would most certainly have been pounded by Allied naval guns waiting offshore. Indeed, during the time while Tom Hanks and his squad were searching for Private Ryan - roughly June 10th to June 13th - the Germans mounted large scale armored counterattacks in France for the first time and all of them were defeated with the help of naval gunnery. 12 The Germans soon learned to dread the Allies' high caliber naval artillery and naval power played an important role stopping the German attempts to push back the invading Allies. Yet, this important factor in helping defeat the Germans at Normandy is also ignored in the film. There is also little in the film to indicate the dominance of the American Army's land based artillery, which was also extremely plentiful and effective with high quality weapons and skilled spotters that could direct accurate artillery fire at the slightest German provocation.13 Were the Germans that stupid? When the Americans landed in northern France they encountered a German Army that was considerably more well organized, trained and led than their own.14 The Germans had also gained the benefit of nearly five years combat experience in the Second World War. Yet the Germans seen in Saving Private Ryan act with a level of calculated ineptitude that makes it difficult to ascribe logical explanations for their behavior. For example, the German attack at the end of the film begins with a Tiger tank obligingly driving down a deserted street followed by some infantry. The Tiger tank might have been the most feared weapon of the entire war, with extremely thick armor and a powerful 88mm gun. On June 13, 1944 a single one of these machines had destroyed over 25 British tanks and vehicles.15 However, driving down a street infested with hostile infantry it became a vulnerable, slow moving target for all sorts of devices that could disable it quite easily.16 The Germans were also well aware of the danger infantry posed to armor given that on the Eastern Front, their troops were forced adopt methods to contend with the huge amount of Soviet tanks.17 That is why it was common practice in an urban environment for infantry to precede the tanks and eliminate the threat posed by enemy footsoldiers. The following is a quote from a U.S. Army study on German tactics written shortly after the Battle of Normandy: The objective of the German infantry is to penetrate into the enemy position and destroy enemy antitank weapons to the limit of its strength…only after the destruction of the enemy anti-tank defense can the tanks be employed on the battle line to the fullest advantage.18 Yet, in Saving Private Ryan, we see the Germans obligingly march into an ambush and behave in a manner conducive to doing little but getting them killed. It is easy to conclude why the Germans act so stupidly in the film &endash; they are the enemy and movie audiences are accustomed to seeing the "bad guys" die. Similarly, the protagonists need to demonstrate their daring and ingenuity and "bad guys" have been doing foolish and inexplicable things for the "good guys" benefit since the invention of the movie camera. There really is nothing wrong with the filmmakers having the Germans act as they do, but if the objective was to make an authentic film, they have failed in not presenting an actual German attack in a realistic manner. What might have happened? It is possible to reconstruct how the film might have concluded based on the evidence provided in historical sources. For one, the Germans would not have been so obliging as to march into so obvious an ambush. Logically, reconnaissance patrols would have entered the town first and tried to discern the whereabouts of the enemy before the Germans drove valuable resources such as a Tiger tank through the town. A common German practice would have seen them send reconnaissance elements into the town and try to draw enemy fire and thus gain knowledge of enemy positions. Had the enemy fired, most likely a mortar barrage would have then been called directed onto the town, as an artillery observer would have been included in the German patrol.19 Similarly, the tanks, with the benefit of their long range guns would probably have shelled the town from a distance and provided covering fire for the advancing infantry.20 The infantry would also have attacked in a far more organized manner than shown in the film, where they run through the streets with little cohesion and organization. Accompanied by combat engineers who had specialized training in urban warfare, the Germans would have attacked each building separately, and moved through the town in a methodical fashion: Assault detachments of engineers, equipped with demolition equipment, flame throwers and grenades accompany the infantry. Where possible the Germans blast holes through the walls of buildings along the route of advance in order to provide the infantry with covered approaches…streets are avoided as much as possible.21 In Saving Private Ryan, when the German infantry advance into the town, they do so rather haphazardly and seem to go out of their way to make themselves convenient targets for the Americans. This too works to undermine the realism the film has worked so hard to achieve. The film also makes an error common to most war films in that the infantry of both sides are shown busily aiming and firing their rifles. While it seems logical that infantry would fire their weapons, the US Army discovered that during the fighting in France, only 15% of the troops actually fired their rifles in any given battle.22 Nerves and fear played a role in producing this low number, but many American troops were also reticent to fire their rifles because American gunpowder was of poor quality and instantly revealed the position of anyone who fired their weapon.23 The Germans had learned the lesson of the rifle's uselessness in the First World War and thus equipped every infantry squad with a MG 42 machine gun, a lightweight weapon with an extremely high rate of fire that would provide the firepower for attacking German infantry.24 A German infantry company (about the size of the unit that attacked at the end of the film) would have possessed 15 MG42s. Yet the attack at the conclusion of Saving Private Ryan does not show a single MG 42, an odd omission considering that German infantry tactics completely revolved around this weapon. Similarly, the film does not include the other primary weapons used to add weight to German attacks, the 81mm and 120mm mortars, dangerous weapons hated by American soldiers because unlike noisy artillery, mortar shells - because of their slow speed - made no noise as they were approaching.25 These weapons would have also been particularly effective against Americans holed up in a bombed out town. The only weapon that is shown in the film is the German panzerschreck, an antitank rocket that was effective against enemy vehicles, but of dubious use against infantry (its translation &endash; "tank terror" would also attest to this). Had the attack seen in Saving Private Ryan actually taken place, the American infantry, isolated in a town with no heavy weapons, probably could not have held out for long or inflicted the damage that they did upon their attackers. They would, however, have possessed the advantages of artillery and airpower to offset the German's superior combat tactics and their lack of numbers. Yet Saving Private Ryan does nothing to show the advantages and particular strengths of either the German or the American armies. Instead, the battle, although exciting and more realistically presented than previous war films, is strikingly similar to many of these films in the errors it makes. The film is a work of fiction, and cannot be expected to be completely accurate. However, if, as the director claims, its purpose was to provide a realistic depiction of the Battle of Normandy, it has not done so. What then, can be said about Saving Private Ryan? Obviously the film deserves the plaudits it receives for its brutal realism and being one of the few war movies that dares depict the horrible wounds and terrible damage caused by modern weaponry. Similarly, the film was also very realistic in how it created the mood of desperation facing American combat soldiers, who knew that they were merely serving until they too would be killed or wounded. However, in other places the film is far less realistic and rather than being an accurate historical depiction of World War Two is little more than another in a long line of outlandish war movies that disregards facts and reality in favor of dramatic effect.26 Sadly, in several places Saving Private Ryan is little different from the war films that the director has worked so hard to distance it from. 1. The following quotes were taken from Jeff Gordinier, "Message in a Battle," Entertainment Weekly, July 24 1998: 29. 2. See the division's table of equipment and organization in Max Hastings, Das Reich: The March of the 2nd SS Panzer Division Through France (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1981), p. 244. 3. Hastings, Das Reich, pgs. 85-88, 213-215. 4. James Lucas, The Military Role of the 2nd SS Division (London: Arms and Armour, 1991), p. 128, 131. 5. Michael Reynolds, Steel Inferno: The 1SS Panzer Corps in Normandy (New York: Sarpedon, 1997), p. 115; Lucas, Das Reich, 132. 6. Lucas, Das Reich, 135; see also Russell Weigley, Eisenhower's Lieutenants: The Campaign of France and Germany, 1944 -1945 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990), p. 129. 7. The divisional histories of the American units that fought at Carentan describe the battle in some detail. See Leonard Rapport and Arthur Northwood, Rendezvous with Destiny: A History of the 101st Airborne Division (Washington: Infantry Journal Press, 1948), pgs. 237-241; Donald E. Houston, Hell on Wheels: The Second Armored Division (California: Presidio Press, 1977), pgs. 201-204. For the attack described from the German point of view see, Jean Mabire, Les SS Au Poing-de-Fer: La Division "Gotz von Berlichingen Au Combat en Normandie (France: Librarie Athreme Fayard, 1984), pgs 71-84. Also see the official history of the U.S. Army in World War Two: Gordon Harrison, Cross Channel Attack (Washington, DC: Office of the Chief of Military History: 1951), pgs 364-365. 8. See Max Hastings, Overlord (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984), p. 160 9. A good source for the role and effectiveness of Allied ground attack aircraft is Ian Gooderson, "Allied Fighter-Bombers versus German Armour in North-West Europe 1944-1945: Myths and Realities," The Journal of Strategic Studies June 1991 (14,2), 210-232; for the effects of air power on the German supply situation see the German Chief Quartermaster West's report (Otto Eckstein) filed for the War Department, study #MS B-839, reprinted in Donald S. Detweiler, ed. World War Two German Military Studies, Volume 12 (New York: Garland, 1979). 10. Among the casualties were General Erich Marcks, the commander of the German LXXXIV Corps, killed on June 12th, as well as the complete destruction (on June 10th) of the headquarters of Panzer Group West, the principal command structure for the German armored units facing the Allies. The commander, General von Schweppenburg was wounded and 17 valuable staff officers were killed. See Weigley, Eisenhower's Lieutenants, p. 124; Michael Reynolds, Steel Inferno, p. 85. 11. Erwin Rommel letter to Lucie Rommel, June 13, 1944 in Martin Blumenson, ed. The Rommel Papers (New York: Da Capo, 1953), p. 491. 12 . See Michael Reynolds, Steel Inferno, pgs. 75-76. Reynolds cites an example of an entire battalion of the German Panzer Lehr division that was wiped out by naval gunfire. Naval gunfire also killed the commander of the German 12th SS Panzer Division, Fritz Witt. For the effect of naval gunfire on the movement of the German panzer divisions see General von Schweppenberg's comments in War Department study #MS-B720, reprinted in World War Two German Military Studies, Volume 12.. 13. For the evolution of the organization and doctrine of the American artillery see Bruce I. Gudmundsson, On Artillery (Connecticut: Praeger, 1993), pgs 136-139. 14. Martin van Creveld makes this case convincingly in Fighting Power: German and U.S. Army Performance, 1939-1945 (Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1982). 15. The action, which played an important role in turning back the British attack toward Caen has been described many times. For a bio on the tank's commander, Michael Wittman, see Gordon Williamson, Aces of the Reich, (London: Arms and Armour, 1989), pgs. 86-90. 16. A good description the weapons and tactics used by infantry to disable enemy armor can be found in Alex Buchner, The German Infantry Handbook, 1939-1945 (Pennsylvania: Schiffer Military History, 1987), pgs 64-71. 17. Ibid., p. 63. 18. U.S. War Department, Handbook on German Military Forces originally published in March, 1945 as Technical Manual TM-E 30-451, reprinted by LSU Press (Baton Rouge, 1990), pg. 220. There is also historical precedent to the danger enemy infantry posed to German tanks during the fighting in Normandy; on June 13, 1944 a few Tigers blundered into the town of Villers-Bocage without infantry support and were easily destroyed by Canadian infantry armed with firebombs. See Reynolds, Steel Inferno, p. 107. 19. For German reconnaissance see Handbook on German Military Forces, pgs 212-214. 20. Handbook on German Military Forces, pg. 253; for some historical examples see Allyn Vannoy and Jay Karamales, Against the Panzers: United States Infantry versus German Tanks, 1944-1945 (North Carolina: McFarland, 1996), pgs 111; 199. 21. Handbook on German Military Forces, p. 253. 22 . See Max Hastings, Overlord, pg. 187. 23 . See Joseph Balkoski, Beyond the Beachhead: The 29th Infantry Division in Normandy (Pennsylvania: Stackpole Books, 1989), pg. 90; also Peter Shrijvers, The Crash of Ruin: American Combat Soldiers During World War Two (New York: NYU Press, 1998), pg. 68. 24. An excellent discussion on the MG 42 as well as a good comparison of the small unit tactics of the American and German armies can be found in Joseph Balkoski, Beyond the Beachhead, pgs 80-105. 25. See Peter Shrijvers, The Crash of Ruin, pg. 67; Joseph Balkoski, Beyond the Beachhead, pg. 95. A standard German company was allotted 12 mortars. 26. Consider the similarity between Saving Private Ryan and other, far more outlandish films such as The Magnificent Seven and Conan the Barbarian, all of which work toward the same conclusion: a hardy band of heroes using smarts and ingenuity to defend a location against hopeless and overwhelming odds.

ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT.... I OVERREACTED, BECAUSE I MISTOOK SOME OF YOU GUYS POSTS FOR FLAMES. MY APOLOGIES TO ALL. Pour ceux que cela intéresse, j'ai complété mes études en histoire (BAC) et terminé ma maîtrise avec Reneo Lukic, professeur de renom international en histoire militaire. Skorzeny

You are entirely right. My style does indeed need some working...at least my english does. For you see, I speak french. I have completed my studies at University Laval, in Canada. I could have written my message in my mother tongueS, but I seriously doubt you would understand even the basic grammar. So please don't hassle me with my English. I already speak/write more languages than you will ever dream to learn in your life. I am born polish/french and I am well advanced in the use of Germans as well. So leave my style alone, less you want use to talk styles. Eh rappelle toi, fiston, que mieux vaut trouver un héros mort qu'un déserteur pétant de santé. Skorzeny

Thanks for the advice KwazyDog. Altough I am almost 100% sure that the option fog of war was set to full. I must admit, however, that I am playing the demo, which might contain bugs or the likes... Skorzeny

Hmm, lots of messages while I wrote mine. Last message I wrote was intended for Fionn...

Oh really? You might want to know that I would not be stupid enough to stick my 150mm in the open and then complain about it getting destroyed... Also, about the master I did on WW2. You mentioned recap. Let me help you on your recap. A 150mm infantry gun is, you proabably did not know it, classed as artillery. Can you name the other 150mm variants used by the Waffen SS in 1944? I guess I will have to help you here. Germans used the 150mm Heavy Infantry Gun, which was the 15 cm s. I. G. 33, a standard infantry weapon, which can be used for high- or low-angle fire. The tube is monobloc, with a horizontal sliding breechlock and cartridge case obturation. The peice is mounted on a two-wheeled carriage with a box trail. This gun was issued with a stick bomb late in the war to be used against wire and minefields. This is clearly not the 150mm used in the scenario, because it can only be used against infantry. Second, the 150 mm 15 cm K. 18 , classed in Field and Medium artillery, has the characteristics features of German "18" class field artillery design, including the recuperator above and the buffer below the tube. A cartridge case accomplishes obturation, and the unusal horizontal sliding breechblock is manually operated. Two hydropneumatic equilibrators are bolted to the tube jacket. The mount is sprung on two wheels, and has a box trail. Last, but not least, is the 150mm 15 cm K. 39, a later version of the 15 cm K. 18, was used either as a field gun on its split-trail, rubber-tired carriage, or as a coast defense gun, with its field carriage mounted on the turntable of an emplaced platform. Source: Michael Reynolds; Steel Inferno and Herbert Sulzbach; With the German guns: Four Years in the Western Front. Cheers Skorzeny

Interesting...very interesting... First of all, thank you for these very informative posts. However, I still have 2 problems with such a theory. I can tell the difference between American 155mm and mortar by the hole created. What concerns me is that it was clearly mortar fire (I.E. Small hole). In fact I tried to test the AI 3 times. As I put my 150mm in different locations during the setup phase, I noticed that wherever I put it (one time behind the last hill), it still managed to get it by Mortar fire. How the hell is the AI able to see it at 3 different spots in the opening round????? I don't think it makes sense (unless the AI "places" it units where they would see my gun the first round). Any advice? Thanks

I am no fool. In fact, I specialised in military history, particularly WW2. My main contention has to do the way the AI in CM handles artillery and mortar support. Back in WW2, once German artillery/tank units were discovered, several minutes, even hours could pass before the Allies redirected their fire against the new threat. For you see, as I play the Germans in CM, I find artillery to be totally useless. Why? It's quite simple. For example, in the scenario Valley of Trouble, wherever I place my 150mm artillery piece, I find that the computer has a miracle way to immediately spot it and destroy it with mortar fire or artillery. More disturbing, as I tried the Americans in the same scenario, I realised that I had only ONE mortar unit in the scenario. I am left deeply concerned. How on earth is German artillery supposed to be of any help in this game if right after the first shot you fire, even though NO SPOTTERS ARE ON SIGHT, a rain of mortars/artillery shells transform the surroundings in a lunaresque landscape. American mortars always seem to reach everywhere; they always have their sight clear, never blocked by hills, forests... So what you guys think about this "miracle" in CM? is there a way to "fix" this obvious bug? Skorzeny