O/T - Is SPR considered realistic?

[David Aitken]

jasoncawley wrote:

> The point is it leaves the impression that the sea wall and safety from the MGs was safety period, when this was most emphatically not the case.

Hmm... I remember scenes from the movie where shells landed behind the sea wall and blew men into the air. And remember the radio operator who had his face blown off. It didn't seem safe at all.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Okay, to anyone who says that the last battle scene was "unrealistic" because the Germans advanced with armor into the town has not done their homework. First, it may have been "stupid", but that does not make it "unrealistic". In other words, in reality, Germans (and other armies) did stupid things. Remember that Panther company that entered the twin villages during the battle of the Bulge (12th SS no less), and got slaughtered? They had no infantry support, either. Morons? yes. Realistic? Yes.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you ever heard of an entire company of infantry run down the middle of a street - and without a single lMG, no less? I've already cited the example of the recce commander at Arnhem bridge, so you have a point - but too many of those stupid things in a single movie make the whole thing unbelievable. The armour in the street one could forgive, the MG in the middle of nowhere one could forgive, the extremely stupid German infantry running around one can forgive, but added up all together - is there anything the Germans did RIGHT in that movie? Or the Americans for that matter? Hawkins mines as claymores, 60mm mortars without the tube - all possible on their own (maybe - not sure about the Hawkins) but when all rolled into one - nah.

[Guest machineman]

How about taking out a Tiger by firing through the drivers vision port- the one that is covered with bullet proof glass? Or the Tigers for some reason not using their machine guns?

Face it, after the beach scene they 'heroed up' the Americans and 'dumbed down' the Germans, so as to keep the American audience happy.

I enjoyed the movie a lot, but thought if they wouldn't have mixed in the 'Americans are the greatest' stuff it would have gone from a good movie to a classic. I think they still would have gotten the audience, too.

[Mr. Clark]

The American troops ended up getting slaughtered. I don't see why everyone wishes they had gotten slaughtered even faster!?

... and hey, how about that american "hero" that cowered in fear the whole battle! Or the one that lost to the SS trooper in a knife fight and was slowly gutted.

Sorry, I just don't agree with the statements that it was "heroed" up too much. There were actually some acts of heroism during the real war. What kind of a message does it send to audiences if all you do is show US troops getting cut apart time and time again for no reason? Would it be preferable somehow to show all American veterans as fleeing, cowering losers?

I don't understand the argument... I really don't.

Sure, SPR has some movie silliness, as all movies will. Overall, I think it does a fine job of showing the absolute horror of war, while keeping the valor and honor of the true heroes (every man there) alive. I'm not afraid to say I think it's a fine tribute to the brave people who fought for our freedom, and a brief horrific glance at what they faced for those of us that were not there.

[LongLeftFlank]

I've got a couple of more movies with realistic (though not 100% so) combat depictions y'all might want to track down at some point:

1. The Odd Angry Shot -- the Aussie Vietnam experience. Captures a lot of the tension and boredom of the jungle war without the Oliver Stone nonsense.

2. The Bridge, with Jimmy Stewart (who knew a few things about combat himself), set in Sichuan Province, China during the '44 Ichigo offensive. Not much combat, but what's in there is pretty damn good.... and at proper combat ranges too.

My main beef with SPR was that most of the final battle took place at way too close quarters, even for a city fight. Once the enemy is within sub 30m. grenade/SMG range, you don't get up and run around the way both sides were doing the whole time. You crouch in your selected hole pissing yourself and unable to see much of anything, or if you feel really motivated, you crawl like a snake. And if you're plain nuts or want to win a posthumous medal, you might engage in a brief heroic dash.... real brief.

3. The Sand Pebbles (Steve McQueen). The actual hand to hand fighting is standard Hollywood choreography, but this is one of the few movies that actually has the characters using sensible military tactics, both in the river battle and at the end. A great movie movie too and one of my favorites in any genre.

4. Oddly enough, the brief combat clips done by Kubrick in Dr. Strangelove(!) are in an authentic, grainy "combat camera" style that I suspect Spielberg drew upon.

"A great.... fatigue came over me..."

[Jeff Heidman]

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

How about taking out a Tiger by firing through the drivers vision port- the one that is covered with bullet proof glass? Or the Tigers for some reason not using their machine guns?

Face it, after the beach scene they 'heroed up' the Americans and 'dumbed down' the Germans, so as to keep the American audience happy.

I enjoyed the movie a lot, but thought if they wouldn't have mixed in the 'Americans are the greatest' stuff it would have gone from a good movie to a classic. I think they still would have gotten the audience, too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never get comments like these.

They "heroed" up the Americans? The "Americans are the greatest" stuff?

Did you see the same movie I did? The one where one American was a out and out coward, another one was an idiot, one made a huge tactical blunder that got one of his men killed, another one was going to shoot one of his soldiers in the head, one sergeant who about got the entire lot of them killed because his feet hurt, etc., etc.

The movie is about a guy who is, in fact, a hero. That was pretty much the point. The *only* person in the entire movie who wa spportrayed in anything like a heroic manner was Hanks, and even he was portrayed as a very reluctant hero at that.

While it might have been more realistic to have Miller and Co. get killed to a man in the first 25 seconds, it would make for a rather short movie.

The Americans won the fights because it was movie about some Americans who won some fights. The Germans were not super-intelligent tactical geniuses crushing the inept Americans because it was not a movie about inept Americans getting crushed.

It is a *movie*, not a documentary. It was a very good movie, IMO.

If "A Bridge Too Far" had been fictional, people would be complaining about how the idiot German rushing across the bridge is just another example of the Allies making the Brits look good, and the Germans bad.

Jeff Heidman

[Mr. Clark]

Wow Jeff, I totally agree. Well said!

It's what I was trying to say.

[Guest Germanboy]

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

Oddly enough, the brief combat clips done by Kubrick in Dr. Strangelove(!) are in an authentic, grainy "combat camera" style that I suspect Spielberg drew upon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not that odd, considering Kubrick made THE classic movie about the stupidity and amorality of the military and the senselessness of war rolled in one story: 'Paths of glory'. A true master piece, and forbidden to be shown in France for 15 or more years AFAIK, because it was so close to the truth and De Gaulle did not approve. World War I, but they don't come better than that.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Silver Stars]

Actually as for the use of 60 MM shells bieng used without the Tube......

A book I own, "Heroes of WWII" describes a brief history of a few of the CMH winners of WWII. One was a Charles E. Kelly, of the 36th Infantry Division. While he and several other soldiers were surrounded by a counterattack, they ran out of grenades. So Kelly pulled the pin and the safety lock, tapped the shell on the window sill to remove the secondary pin, then lobbed it at the oncoming german positions.

so while i doubt it was a common tactic, it has at least been documented as bieng done in real life..

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

"Life is pain. Anyone saying otherwise is selling something."

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Silver Stars:

Actually as for the use of 60 MM shells bieng used without the Tube......

A book I own, "Heroes of WWII" describes a brief history of a few of the CMH winners of WWII. One was a Charles E. Kelly, of the 36th Infantry Division. While he and several other soldiers were surrounded by a counterattack, they ran out of grenades. So Kelly pulled the pin and the safety lock, tapped the shell on the window sill to remove the secondary pin, then lobbed it at the oncoming german positions.

so while i doubt it was a common tactic, it has at least been documented as bieng done in real life..

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think that was in dispute - but thanks for pointing it out. I have heard the evidence you cite before which is why I mentioned it was indeed possible. Thanks for the reference.

The question, to respond to the other posts, is not that the Americans were portrayed as heroic - but that the Germans were portrayed as complete morons from start to finish. I enjoyed the movie a great deal and would not participate in discussions this many years later if I had not. But to answer the original question of this thread - was it realistic - the answer is mixed - yes with regards to portraying the effects of combat on the human body and mind, absolutely freakin' not with regards to military history or tactics. Which is a shame, considering the money and effort they expended to get the small details right - a clear case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

I thought Upham's cowardice was extremely well done - second only to Miller's break down at the radar site. Probably the best crying in cinematic history. No joke.

But I guess if you buy the ridiculous premise of the movie, you are pretty much obliged to buy into everything else that comes along.

My personal favourite is The Bridge at Remagen. There are some phoney "cinematic" scenes in there, too - like the barge on the river - but for the most part the movie captures the feel of the last days of the war very nicely, and presents an extremely balanced view of the fighting around the Remagen bridge.

Like SPR, it was touted as "based on a true story" though the details have been altered to such a degree that any similarities between the movie and anything that happened in real life is pretty much co-incidental.

Some really good acting in it, from George Segal (Just Shoot Me), Ben Gazarra (Jackie Treehorn) and Robert Vaughan.

[David Aitken]

The Man From U.N.C.L.E. himself! Napoleon Solo! I couldn't adjust to him in the role of a German. =)

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

The Man From U.N.C.L.E. himself! Napoleon Solo! I couldn't adjust to him in the role of a German. =)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm with you. I kept wondering when he would pull out his Baretta? with the bloody great silencer attached, Napoleon Solo style.

Regards

Jim R.

[Guest machineman]

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

The question, to respond to the other posts, is not that the Americans were portrayed as heroic - but that the Germans were portrayed as complete morons from start to finish. I enjoyed the movie a great deal and would not participate in discussions this many years later if I had not. But to answer the original question of this thread - was it realistic - the answer is mixed - yes with regards to portraying the effects of combat on the human body and mind, absolutely freakin' not with regards to military history or tactics. Which is a shame, considering the money and effort they expended to get the small details right - a clear case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said. Sure the Germans could screw up, but to make them constantly screw up and in such stupid ways TAKES AWAY from the heroism of the actions portrayed by making them unbelievable. For me that is why, although I also really enjoyed this movie, the beach scenes rank far ahead of the rest of it.

[Silver Stars]

no problem on giving the reference....i just thought i would throw it in since i remembered it. I just enjoyed the movie for what it was, although i must admit it since i watch at least once every month or so, it looks more and more like a movie and i can't help but notice these mistakes....

But ever since SPR seeing old films just tend to look even more hokey then before. I remember watching "The Big Red One" on cable a few years back. nothing awe inspiring but over all a pretty decent flick. but when i grabbed the DVD and watched it, i had to fight the urge to laugh. I mean, not only were the tanks used for the germans looked nowhere near anything used by the wehrmacht, the were SHERMANS. And to add complete irony, I think they were Super Shermans, which were(or are) used by the Isrealis.....somebody was having fun on that TO&E......

So overall, I look past SPR's gaffes. It still is one of the better WWII movies made, and has sparked a New interest in WWII which is giving us new and wonderful movies to gripe about.......Now to wait until march so I can nitpick "Enemy at the Gates".....

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

"Life is pain. Anyone saying otherwise is selling something."

[David Aitken]

Silver Stars wrote:

> I remember watching "The Big Red One" on cable a few years back. nothing awe inspiring but over all a pretty decent flick.

I liked their reconstruction of the Normandy landings with 1 squad, 1 boat, 2 rolls of barbed wire, a smoke grenade and a couple of miniaturised obstacles. It was sunny too. =0

[Guest AbnAirCav]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Silver Stars:

So overall, I look past SPR's gaffes. It still is one of the better WWII movies made, and has sparked a New interest in WWII which is giving us new and wonderful movies to gripe about ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And, too, even with its imperfections I believe it has "raised the bar" on accuracy for those new movies.

[Splinty]

One quick comment about the town combat scene. At one point it shows the Tiger moving down the street with the SS infantry clustered up behind it,this is a very realistic tactic that was practiced all the time by all sides in the war,after all if you were a grunt wouldn't you hide behind the protection of the thing with biggest gun if you had a choice?

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

Nicht Schiessen!!

[Michael Dorosh]

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

One quick comment about the town combat scene. At one point it shows the Tiger moving down the street with the SS infantry clustered up behind it,this is a very realistic tactic that was practiced all the time by all sides in the war,after all if you were a grunt wouldn't you hide behind the protection of the thing with biggest gun if you had a choice?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely NOT! Do you have any idea how much fire a tank draws? Or attention? That's the worst place to be!

[Basebal351]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Absolutely NOT! Do you have any idea how much fire a tank draws? Or attention? That's the worst place to be! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But, Michael, he was saying that it was a practiced tactic. And that they portrayed it in the movie very realistically. And really, I think if I were advancing down the middle of a street, those armor plates would be pretty valuable at protecting me from those nasty machine guns. And I think that if your sergeant had told you to walk behind a tank, you would have done it too!

What I want to know is, what would have been a better way for the Germans to assualt the town, knowing that they have to actually go through it to reach the bridge? I've heard people say before that the Germans used bad tactics, but what exactly could they have done differently? They couldn't sit and wait there and trade shots at 30m, as I heard someone else saying. Besides, they had numerical superiority. They wanted to exploit that and take out the American soldiers before they recieved reinforcements. What should they have done differently to make the movie more "realistic"?

I'd really like to see Spielberg do a movie with realistic tank and infantry combat. I think he could do a nice job with it.

Thanks,

Jim

p.s. I don't really know how often that tactic was used, I just know that I've heard about it more than once on this forum.

[Forever Babra]

I insist that these soldiers be located and they or their families be executed summarily for stupidity

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

Massada Lo Tipol Shenit

[Basebal351]

Darn!! That is a NICE pic!! Where did you get it from?? I would love to have it!!

Thanks,

Jim

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Forever Babra:

I insist that these soldiers be located and they or their families be executed summarily for stupidity

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know as well as I do that the majority of "combat" photos taken in the Second World War were staged. ESPECIALLY colour ones due to the rarity of colour film in those days. This really doesn't prove anything one way or another. Gee, maybe someone can quote from Guy Sajer next...

To answer the other question...the picture can be found in any of the publications put out regarding Signal magazine; there is probably a copy of it somewhere in Time-Life's World War Two Encyclopedia - it is a widely reproduced image.

[Forever Babra]

Yes, that pic first appeared in the German PK magazine "Signal". Viewing the film "Mein Krieg", one of the film-makers specifically noted that colour film was NOT rare, and could be easily had up until 1943.

EDIT: Here's a link to another pic (316K) of Canadians advancing into Falaise. It is part of a whole series of photos taken by a photographer who followed the troops as they cleared the town.

http://www.geocities.com/babrakhan2001/Falaise.jpg

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

Massada Lo Tipol Shenit

[This message has been edited by Forever Babra (edited 01-23-2001).]

[Silver Stars]

Personally I think that Tactic is genuine. I remember(although I can't source) seeing that tactic emulated in some other film. Most of the pictures i remember of city combat had men either walking along side a building on the far sides of a road, or behind a vehicle, moving or otherwise.

Besides, exactly where else are the infantry going to go? the damn street was so narrow most of the platoon would be either walking in front or behind the tank. The guys in single file on the sides are looking around up front well enough, so stick most of the platoon behind the tank for cover.

They could have possibly moved from building to building clearing it out, but if you are moving tanks in, you were in a hurry anyway and building to building would take forever.Besides the reason you want infantry with your tank is watching the areas the tank can't see when buttoned up, i.e. mostly the sides and rear.

I agree there were some things I would have done differently if I were the germans.

The number one thing was wax that damn church tower before i set foot one in that little burg. Anybody who read "Currahee" could have told you that one. that and if i heard a deafening explosion behind my tank where my infantry support was, I would have told the driver to stop and not drive forward blind as a bat. but that's just me....

So yes, the Germans where quick to fall for any trick(Ami firing a BAR at an armored column and running down a dark narrow road?hey let's follow him...), i don't think there assault tactics were TOO far off....

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

"Life is pain. Anyone saying otherwise is selling something."

[Goofy]

"Personally I think that Tactic is genuine. I remember(although I can't source) seeing that tactic emulated in some other film. Most of the pictures i remember of city combat had men either walking along side a building on the far sides of a road, or behind a vehicle, moving or otherwise."

Sure, remember the battle in Hue in "Full Metal Jacket"? I know Kubrick was mentioned earlier in this thread. He seemed to have a knack for that (or the presence of mind to hire someone to do the homework!), remember the infantry fights, hose everything in sight! And dropping back even further (historically speaking) how about the portrayals of the battles in "Barry Lyndon"?

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

Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries!

[This message has been edited by Goofy (edited 01-23-2001).]