PanzerShark Posted February 13, 2000 Share Posted February 13, 2000 I saw this movie to kill some sparetime. Although i did not enjoy it, it did raise one question. What were those tanks supposed to be? A Stug? A mark IV? I realy have no idea. Since it must have been a bad replica i wondered..of what? Any thoughts? PanzerShark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ol' Blood & Guts Posted February 13, 2000 Share Posted February 13, 2000 Ahhh, you didn't like it? I thought it was a good pre-Saving Private Ryan movie. I think the tanks were "supposed" to be Pz IVH or J's. ------------------ "I want you to remember that...no bastard ever won a war...by dying for his country...He won it...by making the other poor dumb bastard...die for his country."--George S. Patton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted February 13, 2000 Share Posted February 13, 2000 If anyone wants the DVD, I'll sell it to ya (shipping included in the US) for $12. It's in perfect condition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted February 14, 2000 Share Posted February 14, 2000 I liked the movie, and actually went out looking for it because of what I read about it in this forum. But it's a rare movie I'll watch twice in the same decade, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PanzerShark Posted February 14, 2000 Author Share Posted February 14, 2000 Well, it's not a BAD movie. It has some good scenes, nice scenery and sounds. I just had the idea the maker wanted to give the viewer an idea how bad it was (mentally/physically) for these soldiers. Personally i think he failed a bit. Maybe if the movie lasted a bit longer then 90 minutes the characters would have gripped me more. Right now i couldn't care less or feel sad when a "main-character" died. Not bad...just a tad too short. PanzerShark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted February 14, 2000 Share Posted February 14, 2000 Somehow I got the impression those "Mark IV's" where actually heavily modified T-72's (wasn't the movie filmed in some former Eastern Bloc nation?) The movie itself was kinda so-so. Can't say I was overly impressed with the acting, but the broad story kinda gave the right impression about the Heurtgen Forest operation: Several divisions that went into those woods came out with over 100% losses --- the worst disaster for American troops since D-day. Matter of fact, losses where so heavy, and the objectives so vague, that military sensors pretty much covered up the whole thing until after the war was over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffRaider Posted February 14, 2000 Share Posted February 14, 2000 Over 100% losses? I think not. . . Some divisions had 100% turnover, but I think the average casualty percentage for divisions fighting in the HF was about 25-30%. ------------------ -- Jeff Fraser VIVA LOS ZAPATISTAS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted February 14, 2000 Share Posted February 14, 2000 The movie had some good parts but mostly I didn't like it. I wasn't expecting good acting or tactics anyway, but the thing that really ruined it for me what that the whole situation was wrong. The main characters were in the 28th Division futilely attacking Schmidt. In real life, however, the 28th practically walked into town but then was routed (literally) out of it by a counterattack. The situation in the movie was more like what happened to the 4th Division IIRC ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted February 14, 2000 Share Posted February 14, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Several divisions that went into those woods came out with over 100% losses<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Umm, how do you take casualties in excess of what you have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Frankrad Posted February 14, 2000 Share Posted February 14, 2000 You can easily have casualties more than "you have". Many divisions in the ETO had over 200 (thats two HUNDRED) percent casualties throughout the war. Its simple, really. For example, a platoon of 40 guys takes 35 casualties and takes 35 replacements. It goes into battle the next day, it suffers 30 more casualties. That platoon has lost well over 100 percent of its TOE of 40 guys. Get the picture? Also, a typical US infantry division in the ETO consisted of about 4,000 riflemen, the rest of the 10,000 or so men being logistical tail, signal, Quartermaster, the Artillery regiment, etc. Thus, if an infantry takes 3,800 casualties (as the 9th Infantry did in the Hurtgenwald), its virtually worthless as a combat unit. As Patton said, an infantry division that suffers 4,000 casualties has no riflemen left. If you consider that fact that divisions like the Big Red One suffered far more than 200 percent causaulties AS A WHOLE throughout the war, and only about a third of the division are actual rifleman, it is safe to assume the casualty rate of riflemen was something in the order of 600 percent. The soldiers who survived the whole war without a scratch are a rare exception indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babra Posted February 14, 2000 Share Posted February 14, 2000 Statistically (no, don't go there... ) A soldier in Europe in '44 had a greater chance of being killed or wounded than his pappy in WW1. ------------------ Floreat Jerboa ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted February 14, 2000 Share Posted February 14, 2000 Pardon moi! 100% turnover; 100% replacement; 100% casualties --- whatever you want to call it. But when a company in the 4th Div. goes in with 162 men, and one month later has 287 recorded battle losses, how would you refer to it (other than as a tragic waste of man-power)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindan Posted February 14, 2000 Share Posted February 14, 2000 from: "Beyond the beachhead", ...still the 29th stayed in the line, committed to combat. It was if combat for 242 days. Total casualties were 28,776. The percent of turnover for the division as a whole - including staff, support elements, artillery units - was 204. [This message has been edited by Lindan (edited 02-14-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted February 14, 2000 Share Posted February 14, 2000 Bullethead, The situation is probably meant to be when they tried to retake Schmidt after having lost it the first time. At the briefing while looking at their pathetic map the order to take Schmidt again is given. What follows there after might, with a lot of good will, be thought to depict the failed attempt to cross the Kall again. Failed because they didn’t get over it and they didn’t retake Schmidt. None of the heroic "special missions" took place in reality, at least not there and then. As for the tanks. Supposed to be Pz.IV´s no doubt, my guess is that they are "based" on the old Russian 122mm artillery SPG (can’t remember the name right now). Turret far back, the look of the road wheels and the fact that the gun really looks like it’s being fired (as supposed to, say, a BMP with a mock up gun) M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted February 14, 2000 Share Posted February 14, 2000 Hmmm, lessee heah: Division level casualties for Huertgen Wood: 2nd and 9th Armored Div's: About 4500 ea. 28th Inf Div: About 7000 4th Inf Div: About 7000 (The above include such things as battle fatigue and trench foot --- though the vast majority are battle casualties of front-line troops). Most of these losses occured in one months time between Sept and Dec 44. Hell, the 2nd Ranger Batt took over 90% casualties in a single day fighting over a landmark called Hill 400! (Hey, now that would make a good CM scenario, eh? Rangers who made it through called the fighting at Hill 400 a hundred times worse than what they'd gone through at Pointe-du-Hoc on D-day). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babra Posted February 14, 2000 Share Posted February 14, 2000 I once suffered over 90% casualties and soundly whooped the A/I at Reisburg... ------------------ Floreat Jerboa ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted February 14, 2000 Share Posted February 14, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: I once suffered over 90% casualties and soundly whooped the A/I at Reisburg... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Long, but on topic. But that is nothing to be proud of, is it? Detailed stats for all US division losses in the ETO can be found in 'Closing with the Enemy' The record is held by the 90th, which IIRC had ~260% turnover, and they also had the longest exposure with ~306 days or such. There are a couple of infantry divisions with 200+%. Amor losses were significantly less, the highest was the 4th, methinks with about ~185%. These figures are based on the total number of men in a division, not on the actual frontline unit, so they are pretty horrific. BTW, if you did make it through all this alive, you would break down after about 200 days of constant exposure and become a combat fatigue victim. You can compare the figures to those of bomber crews flying over Germany by picking up 'The Nuremberg Raid'. Makes an interesting comparison, also for the reaction to combat fatigue in the US Army and the UK Bomber Command. Most losses (obviously) occured in the frontline units. CWTE contains percentage figures for infantry, armor and artillery. Now the author's basic thesis is dodgy, but he gives very good descriptions of the organisational (and painful) learning process the US troops underwent during the campaign. I highly recommend it. Same goes for the other book. Doubler, Michael D., Michael Dale, - Closing with the enemy : how GIs fought the war in Europe, 1944-1945. - Lawrence, Kan. : University Press of Kansas, 1994. - (Modern war studies). - 0700606750 Middlebrook, Martin, - The Nuremberg raid : 30-31 March 1944. - Rev. ed. - Harmondsworth : Penguin, 1986. - 0140081143 ------------------ Andreas [This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 02-14-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tss Posted February 14, 2000 Share Posted February 14, 2000 One of the worst losses of a division-sized unit that I've seen was with one Soviet infantry division (can't remember its number just now, my source is away) that participated in Winter War. The division participated in only three attacks (Lake Suvanto 25-26.12., some that I can't remember, and the drive to Viipuri on the final days of the war) and was in combat only for some 20 days. During this time the unit lost some 25000 men out of original 14000 and it was refitted twice. - Tommi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts