Saving Private Ryan...

[Spook]

Just went over to check out the link myself. (The text is easier to read there than the format at this topic thread.)

What's rather intriguing is that M. Marino, the article's author, has a few of his references and comments that are historically questionable.

For example, in one of the footnotes:

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.

EACH German infantry company had twelve (81mm?) mortars as a standard allotment in '44? HHMMMMMMM. I'd agree on battalion-level, but on company level? Someone here got a TO&E handy to affirm one way or the other?

As another, Marino builds his case for relative German tactical superiority on the referenced opinions of SLA Marshall, Weigley, and Creveld. These are true in the main that the Allies were less skilled than the Germans in small unit tactics at the beginning of the Normandy battle. But the bantered Marshall figure of "only 15% of US riflemen fired their weapons" is one example of a stock opinion (which was never proven by survey or correlated by historical AAR's) that is challenged more recently by authors like Doubler in a compelling way too. (Doubler was inclined to qualify, rather than to refute, the earlier held beliefs of "uninspired US mass over means".)

So, Skorzeny, if you and M. Marino ARE one and the same, some added cross-reference and verification of TO&E's might be needed. If not, then BTS, please lock this topic down.

[This message has been edited by Spook (edited 08-10-2000).]

[Fuse]

Hmmm, I wonder if I could turn that essay in for my "Technical Writing for Engineers" class. It just might work

------------------

Upon the fields of friendly strife, are sown the seeds of Victory.

---Douglas McArthur

[GI Tom]

In light of this thread, and being a proponent of the movie, I have an article that I'm going to post.

The below is from WWII Magazine, Feb-99 issue and it's the Editorial:

_Steven Spielberg's film Saving Private Ryan brings viewers face to face with the brutality of war._

In September 1862, before the debris of battle was cleared from the fields around Antietam Creek in Western Maryland, photographers Alexander Gardner and James E. Gibson travleed to the scene of the bloodiest day of combat in American history.

They had come at the behest of their employer, the famed Mathew Brady. Their task was to record what they saw. in the midst of the Civil War, their photographic record was exhibited some weeks later in Brady's New York gallery. It's effect was electric. Scenes of men frozen in death, lying in heaps along dirt roads and gathered in fields for burial shocked civilians thorughout the North.

A New York Times reporter wrote: "The dead of the battle-field come up to us very rarely even in dreams. We see the list in the morning paper at breakfast, but dismiss its recollection with the coffee. There is a confused mass of names, but they are all strangers, we forget the horrible signifcance that dwells mid the jumble of type....We recognize the battle-field as a reality, but it stands as a remote one. It is like a funeral next door. It attracts your attention, but it does not enlist your sympathy. But it is very different when the hearse stops at your own door and the corpse is carried over your own threshold...Mr. Brady has done something to bring to us the terrible reality and earnestness of the war. If he has not brought bodies and laid them in our dooryards and along our streets, he had done something very like it."

Steven Spielberg and the superb cast of Saving Private Ryan have done something similar for modern viewers with a movie that is one the most accurate screen depictions of modern warfare ever made-as well as a strong Academy Award contender. Certainly, times are different. Americans are not now in the midst of a war. Daily causalty lists are not being read. Telegrams with dreaded news are not being delivered.

But, Saving Private Ryan does have a very profuound message for us all. While most of us will never feel the sting of battle or experience the loss of a loved one who is serving his country, we must maintain a clear understanding of the price of freedom. This lesson is as true today as it was during World War II or the Civil War.

Twenty minutes of harrowing footage depicting the horrors of Omaha Beach on D-Day provide one of the most compelling history lessons possible. The story of eight men on a mission to save one brings home the point that in a global war of immense proportions the struggle to survive is intensely personal. Neatly arranged rows of marble crosses with names etched in each one serve as reminders of sacrifice, but they do not convey the sense of chaos, the scenes of incredible carnage and the deafening din of battle.

Spielberg brings to the attention of average citizens something that many might never otherwise have considered-not even on Memorial Day or Veterans Day. He brings them face to face with war. War is ugly. War is waste. War is death. Saving Private Ryan is intense. It should be. Saving Private Ryan is gripping. It should be. Saving Private Ryan is graphic. It has to be. Only the real thing could have conveyed the sensation of being under fire more accurately. I left the theatre completely exhausted and grateful that it was another generation that was obliged to take up arms and defeat the enemies of freedom. The obligation of those who have come later-is quite simply-to be worthy of their heroism and sacrafice.

There wasn't much conversation as the audience filed out of the theater. Most, I concluded were deep in thought. Hopefully, they were contemplating a new appreciation for the veterans whose experiences in World War II were similar to those depicted on screen. Hopefully, their definition of "hero" was expanded somewhat as well. Every member of the armed forces who placed himself or herself in harm's way for our sake was and is a hero.

Acclaimed author Stephen E. Ambrose, whose most recent book The Victors is excerpted in this issue, served as a historical consultant on Saving Private Ryan. He commented: "The film catches what happened exactly. it is, without question, the most accurate and realistic depiction of war on screen that I have ever seen, not only in terms of the action, but the actors look, act, talk, walk, bitch, argue and love one another exactly as the GI's did in 1944."

Saving Private Ryan should be required viewing for every American over the age of 14. Our veterans endured the harshest of conditions, forfeiting thier youth, sometimes their health, and all too often their lives for their country. Acknowledging their sacrifice with a deeper understanding of their experience is the least we can do.

M.E.H.

Now, granted, this has a U.S. slant on it as this was from a U.S. writer. However, this is not to offend anyone of another nationality in any way, shape or form.

My purpose for the post is to point out that most likely, IMO, what the movie's sole purpose was to show the brutality of war. Additonally, I feel it was attempting to capture the individual soldier's viewpoint (more specifically the U.S. soldier).

I think most people see the movie for what it is, not as a plot about saving one man, but the effects of battle on men. Additionally, the feeling of helplessness one individual has during a situation of this magnitude.

I hate having to post what some will consider drivel, but this movie is a masterpiece for what I feel it was trying to accomplish.

I have never heard from the many many people I've spoken with that the movie's main goal was to be a "historically accurate" portrayal of the events themselves. It's been more of how men handled themselves during a situation similar to the "actual" events that occurred.

Of course, what Skorzeny, or whatever the hell is name is, did was totally unacceptable. Unless Skorzeny is the original writer of the original excerpt. I'll bet he feels like a fool now if he isn't the original writer. (See his other post where he states he is no fool).

Of course, I can't help but point out the symbolism of his name. Skorzeny was a "behind the lines" operator during WWII. So, maybe he chose that name as he wanted to cause trouble from the start.

GI Tom

------------------

To a New Yorker like you, a hero is some type of wierd sandwich.

[BasilD]

Hahaha well one can see how he got his master's degree at least

------------------

As the victors define history, so does the majority define sanity...

[Guest mch]

and IF you did steal that essay....

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My suggestion to you would simply be to drop the attitude and realise that you probably aren't all that special on this forum as a lot of people know what they're talking about and some quite certainly know far more than you.

Seriously, drop the attitude before someone decides to embarass you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Wayne]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JOCHEN PEIPER:

By the way, those "Tigers" in Saving Private Ryan were actually T-34's dressed up to look like Tiger tanks...

Look very carefully at the tracks and you will see that it is in fact a T-34...

CHEERS!!!

oh yeah I liked your run-down on SPR...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've always thought that they were Cromwells or Centurians, which had that box looking profile of the Tiger, made up to look like Tigers. Were they the same tanks used in "Kelly's Heros"?

------------------

Blessed be the Lord my strength who teaches my hands to war and my fingers to fight.

[Airborne]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook:

For example, in one of the footnotes:

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.

EACH German infantry company had twelve (81mm?) mortars as a standard allotment in '44? HHMMMMMMM. I'd agree on battalion-level, but on company level? Someone here got a TO&E handy to affirm one way or the other?

[This message has been edited by Spook (edited 08-10-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just finished Balkoski's book.. He is referring to a German Heavy Weapons company--not an infantry co.. He says that they typically had 4 120mm and 6 81mm mortars , but sometimes substituted in another 6 81mms instead of the 4 120s..

------------------

Land Soft--Kill Quiet

[Spook]

Now, granted, this has a U.S. slant on it as this was from a U.S. writer. However, this is not to offend anyone of another nationality in any way, shape or form.

The problem here is that if the other nationalities of the film are portrayed in a superficial or outright inaccurate manner (as was the case in how German tactics were shown in SPR), then offense can very easily still be taken; further evidenced by "The Patriot" made this year.

My purpose for the post is to point out that most likely, IMO, what the movie's sole purpose was to show the brutality of war. Additonally, I feel it was attempting to capture the individual soldier's viewpoint (more specifically the U.S. soldier).

Many other earlier war films have succeeded in capturing the individual's viewpoint and war's brutal nature, even better so in films like "Das Boot" (IMO). Otherwise, I agree in balance with your statement.

I think most people see the movie for what it is, not as a plot about saving one man, but the effects of battle on men. Additionally, the feeling of helplessness one individual has during a situation of this magnitude.

Hmmmm...yes and no. Through a lot of Hanks' grandstanding in SPR, one could just as easily get the impression as to what impact one man (or small group of men) could make to the overall operational "situation".

I hate having to post what some will consider drivel, but this movie is a masterpiece for what I feel it was trying to accomplish.

Yours is an opinion that should be welcome here as much as any others'. If you would say that the movie's goal was to re-connect people to WW2 in an emotional manner, I would agree.

I have never heard from the many many people I've spoken with that the movie's main goal was to be a "historically accurate" portrayal of the events themselves. It's been more of how men handled themselves during a situation similar to the "actual" events that occurred.

Again, the central question to SPR to me is how authentic was the treatment of the Germans. If the Germans were shown in an ahistorical manner (by tactics, weapons use, etc.), then the foundation to authenticity is lost. I say that one could do a fictional battle of a historical setting, but if the tactics, weapons, "SOP's" etc. of the two opposing sides abide to historical constraints, then you can still have an authentic movie.

I believe I know where you're coming from, GI Tom, in what you like SPR for. I like it too, I have a VHS copy, and I'll get it in DVD when I change to DVD later on. And while I'm no fan of Tom Hanks (and felt that he was taking too much "center stage" again in SPR), I admit that this was one of Hanks' better performances too. The Omaha Beach scene, in particular, had tremendous impact on me.

But I would thank both Spielberg and Ambrose to keep from claiming that they are standing on a unique pedestal of "historical accuracy" through the making of SPR. For example, I couldn't see any experienced US combat leader deciding that the best way to attack an MG42 nest was to charge it head-on. The sniper could've just picked off the MG crew instead. (That's right, Cpt Miller, you DID have a sniper in your group...)

[This message has been edited by Spook (edited 08-10-2000).]

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Airborne:

I just finished Balkoski's book.. He is referring to a German Heavy Weapons company--not an infantry co.. He says that they typically had 4 120mm and 6 81mm mortars , but sometimes substituted in another 6 81mms instead of the 4 120s..

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah. OK, so basically, with one HW company per battalion, the 81's/120's could be ranked closer as battalion-level assets instead of provided to each and every infantry company. Thanks, Airborne.

[Greybeard 101st]

I will just say that I enjoyed the movie very much.

I rarely if ever expect a movie to be based 100% in fact, it is after all a movie, not the tv series "world at war".

If anything the movie did what few movies have done, it raised the whole WW2 issue and the insane lack of a WW2 veterans memorial.

I commend Tom Hanks and the work he is doing to get a WW2 memorial built in DC.

Why one hasn't been built before this is to me, a disgrace.

My father, like many others fathers fought in this war, and deserve at the very least a memorial for the duty they did for their country.

If any movie no matter how un-real it is, can raise the consciousness, for a good cause such as this, then I am all for it.

It brought to many people the horrors of real combat,on a scale that has not been done before.

It also maybe made some people appreciate the sarifice, made by all the soldiers and civilians who took part in this epic war.

PS, my mother was a "Rosie the riveter" while my father was in north Africa and Northern Italy.

------------------

-kill 'em all and let God sort them out-

[John Wayne]

I am new to this board.

Wow, there has been a lot of talk about plagiarism here. But quite frankly, I think we should wait for Skorzeny's reply before we jump to hasty conclusion.

Because, as a student in history, I use to have several contracts with teachers involving the construction of historical essays.

Therefore, let's be careful; Skorzeny might have been hired by Dr. Marino to do the research.

I will also talk about myself later on, as some people on the PE board are likely to know who I am...

John Wayne

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Wayne:

But quite frankly, I think we should wait for Skorzeny's reply before we jump to hasty conclusion.

Therefore, let's be careful; Skorzeny might have been hired by Dr. Marino to do the research.

John Wayne<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With respect, given Mr. Skorzeny's tone, attitude and opening statments on this board, I'm not sure if there are many here who would be so charitable as to grant him the benefit of the doubt as you suggest.

I personally find it difficult to believe that such a work as "Bloody But Not History: What's Wrong with Saving Private Ryan" was in fact written by the same individual who introduced himself to this board with these words

"

Topic: This sure ain't how WW2 was....

Skorzeny

Junior Member

posted 08-10-2000 12:26 AM

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. "

Sorry, but given the lack of evidence, to the contrary, and in the absence of Mr. Skorzeny posting a prompt, scholarly and concise rebuttal and or explanation, it is my opinion that this is a clear case of the most blatant plagarism I have ever seen.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-10-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Airborne:

I just finished Balkoski's book.. He is referring to a German Heavy Weapons company--not an infantry co.. He says that they typically had 4 120mm and 6 81mm mortars , but sometimes substituted in another 6 81mms instead of the 4 120s..

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well since most my refrence materials are still packed I'll ad the below from what I have lying around:

The type 43 Inf div Company TOE * had 2 81mm mortars per Co. The Heavy Co had 12 HMGs, 6 81mm mortars or 75mm Lt Inf guns.

The Infantry gun Co had 12 81mm mortars, 4 120mm mortars or in place of the 120's 150mm guns.

* See: Buchner Alex "The German Infantry Handbook 1939 - 1945" p.142

Regards, John Waters

------------

"Make way evil, I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hamster!"

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 08-10-2000).]

[Redleg]

And Sorensky claimed in another thread that his first language is not english, but french. The article appears to be written by an individual who speaks english as a first language. If not, then someone with better english than sorensky has displayed previously.

[Guest Germanboy]

A simple email to Dr. Whatshisname will presumably clear that up in no time. Being a grad student myself, therefore concerned about plagiarism, I will take it upon me to send it later.

As for the benefit of the doubt, anyone checked Skorzy's profile? No email, no nothing. IMO, he belongs to the species of Trollus Trollus.

------------------

Andreas

[Joe Shaw]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>IMO, he belongs to the species of Trollus Trollus.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Surely Trollus Minimus or perhaps even Trollus Dumb****z ... I believe that Trollus Trollus wouldn't have used something from the very board to which he was posting?

Joe

[ncounio]

Ah Andreas, you got the right genre but the wrong species.

Should be :

Trollus Vulgaricus Kickmybutticus A

A for Andreas as you are the discoverer

------------------

Nicolas

http://perso.infonie.fr/nicolas.counio/combat_mission1.html

"Deux intellectuels assis vont moins loin qu'une brute qui marche"

Un Taxi Pour Tobrouk

[David Aitken]

I love it... in his previous thread he quoted some irrelevant technical data about 150mm infantry guns. It had no purpose in the discussion, but he was expecting us to respect him for it!

I laughed when he stepped on Fionn's toes though. Fionn is the nemesis of smartarse newbies and charlatans everywhere. =)

David

[This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 08-10-2000).]

[virtualfreak]

I have studied ww2 by myself for 4 years know. (Since in history class all we ever learn about are the colonial times year after year) and before i watched "Saving privite Ryan" I new more about ww2 than any kid in my school.My point is is that when spielberg said his movie was the most realistic than any history movie at that time he mean that it showed the horror and death of a battle than any movie about ww2 before it. "Saving Privite Ryan" was meant to show to younger people (by the way im only 15 years old) the sacrifice and struggle to keep the world as a democracy. "The Longest Day" however realistic in its battles and situations was not very realistic when it came to combate. Example Evil german soldier tries to drown pretty french girl when Good allied soldier kills evil german and saves the gire. Many ww2 movies made in the 50's and 60's gave everyone the idea that ww2 was easly won and that the germans were stupid and one american could kill 50 german soldiers and still have time for a smoke. Saving private ryan changed all that by showing us that ww2 was not an easy victory and that we paid alot in blood for world freedom.

[Tiger]

I don't think you could make a movie completey historical and have it be entertaining, unless you're making a documentary, clearly which SPR was not.

Someone mentions Das Boot as a better, more factual movie but is it? I've read somewhere that the captain was not portrayed exactly like he was in real life;and can anyone prove the exact convoy that got attacked in the movie was the historically correct one and did anyone check whether the ships sunk were the actual historical ships that were sunk, or that they used real WWII German torpedos in the movie. On that day in that spot?

Come on guys, you're being way too anal about the details in SPR . It's a movie which by their very nature are meant to be entertaining rather than completely historically accurate (Braveheart, anyone?). Assuming that no-one realizes this but "you" is plain silly.

-jmtcw

-john

[Hakko Ichiu]

Here is a little song I wrote on the spur of the moment in honor of our new friend, Skorzeny:

Who made me the genius I am today,

The mathematician that others all quote,

Who's the professor that made me that way?

The greatest that ever got chalk on his coat.

One man deserves the credit,

One man deserves the blame,

And Nicolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky is his name.

Hi!

Nicolai Ivanovich Lobach-

I am never forget the day I first meet the great Lochevsky.

In one word he told me secret of success in mathematics:

Plagiarize!

Plagiarize,

Let no one else's work evade your eyes,

Remember why the good Lord made your eyes,

So don't shade your eyes,

But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize -

Only be sure always to call it please 'research'.

And ever since I meet this man

My life is not the same,

And Nicolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky is his name.

Hi!

Nicolai Ivanovich Lobach-

I am never forget the day I am given first original paper

to write. It was on analytic and algebraic topology of

locally Euclidean metrization of infinitely differentiable

Riemannian manifold.

Bozhe moi!

This I know from nothing.

But I think of great Lobachevsky and get idea - ahah!

I have a friend in Minsk,

Who has a friend in Pinsk,

Whose friend in Omsk

Has friend in Tomsk

With friend in Akmolinsk.

His friend in Alexandrovsk

Has friend in Petropavlovsk,

Whose friend somehow

Is solving now

The problem in Dnepropetrovsk.

And when his work is done -

Haha! - begins the fun.

From Dnepropetrovsk

To Petropavlovsk,

By way of Iliysk,

And Novorossiysk,

To Alexandrovsk to Akmolinsk

To Tomsk to Omsk

To Pinsk to Minsk

To me the news will run,

Yes, to me the news will run!

And then I write

By morning, night,

And afternoon,

And pretty soon

My name in Dnepropetrovsk is cursed,

When he finds out I publish first!

And who made me a big success

And brought me wealth and fame?

Nicolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky is his name.

Hi!

Nicolai Ivanovish Lobach -

I am never forget the day my first book is published.

Every chapter I stole from somewhere else.

Index I copy from old Vladivostok telephone directory.

This book was sensational!

Pravda - well, Pravda - Pravda said: (Russian double-talk)

It stinks.

But Izvestia! Izvestia said: (Russian double-talk)

It stinks.

Metro-Goldwyn-Moskva buys movie rights for six million rubles,

Changing title to 'The Eternal Triangle',

With Ingrid Bergman playing part of hypotenuse.

And who deserves the credit?

And who deserves the blame?

Nicolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky is his name.

Hi!

------------------

Ethan

-----------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Skorzeny wrote:

I am no fool. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We should've known. Anyone who feels the need to deny that they're a fool without being prompted has got to be the biggest fool around.

By the same token, I am no genius, nor do I possess supernatural sexual potency.

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Walter]

The funny thing about troll-boy claiming to have written this is that I read this a few months ago.... on this forum . I searched for it, but couldn't find it here, but I know it is

Cheers,

Walter R. Strapps

p.s. Just in the rather remote case that he *did* actually write the essay, I apologize in advance.

[Steve Clark]

By its fundamental nature, a film footage (whether historical or re-creation) cannot be totally accurate. You are using only two of the five senses: sight and sound. And with the sight, you only can take in the view from the lens which is more limited in scope, clarity, color and depth of field than the human eye.

[Vanir]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Walter:

The funny thing about troll-boy claiming to have written this is that I read this a few months ago.... on this forum . I searched for it, but couldn't find it here, but I know it is

Cheers,

Walter R. Strapps

p.s. Just in the rather remote case that he *did* actually write the essay, I apologize in advance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Walter, do a search for "Saving Private Ryan". Its on the 3rd page of results in the thread titled "SPR: Hitorical & Tactical Analysis", dated 04/15/00.