Mattias Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 Well, looking at the movie trailer with the StuG's it is clear that at least the gun and the mounting of it is not 100% as it should be on the closest vehicle. When it moves over the oil drum (?) in the first scene the barrel jumps up and down an awfull lot. And.. when it fires in the second scene the interiour of the StuG lights up from the blast, something best avoided in real life But other than that, very good looking M. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trommelfeuer Posted March 6, 2004 Author Share Posted March 6, 2004 O.K.... and what about this photo ? ( Soldiers conduct offensive on the copse occupied with Germans. In the foreground - fragments of a wrecked german aircraft. ) source * The Leningrad Blockade - russian photo archive. Regards, Sven 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 I don't know the swastika seems to be very prominent. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 The second photo looks real. The first might be a collage made out of several photos. I think so because there are several such prominent photos in existence. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 Originally posted by Mattias: Well, looking at the movie trailer with the StuG's it is clear that at least the gun and the mounting of it is not 100% as it should be on the closest vehicle. When it moves over the oil drum (?) in the first scene the barrel jumps up and down an awfull lot. And.. when it fires in the second scene the interiour of the StuG lights up from the blast, something best avoided in real life I am surprised there would be TWO Stug runners in existence, let alone two in fully restored condition. They might have used a runner which is in less than perfect condition to act as the firing specimen because a fully restored vehicle would be in risk if the pyrotechnics failed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munter Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 Originally posted by Trommelfeuer: Photo 2: Finnish Stugs kicking ass --> Authentic Stugs ? Or fake Stugs for the film "Ahead of the front line" ? The first photo looks "staged" to me.... About the Stugs...don't know right now... There are at least 2 Stu-40's in more or less running condition. The second one was "adopted" by a bunch of technology students from Lappeenranta in the mid 90's. I saw them working on the old warhorse during my visit on the museum. About the picture, check the wheels and tracks. There should not be any reason for doubts. (edited: no picture to compare with for some reason) M [ March 07, 2004, 05:59 AM: Message edited by: Munter ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 Originally posted by Munter: About the picture, check the wheels and tracks. There should not be any reason for doubts. Band of Brothers lovers, eat your heart out ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Andreas Lärka e-mailed me about the StuG's. According to him: Both StuG's are real allright. The one in the front is Ps.531-4 (http://www.andreaslarka.net/ps531004/ps531004.html) and the one in the back is Ps.531-18 (http://www.andreaslarka.net/ps531018/ps531018.html). Both are restored and functioning. The light in the driver's visor of Ps.531-4 is a reflection of the gun's blast. Andreas Lärka Pornainen, Finland Webmaster for "www.andreaslarka.net"That should settle it. Also visit his website if you haven't already! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bogdan Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Originally posted by Trommelfeuer: O.K.... and what about this photo ? Hi, IMHO, this is a well-composed photo made by russian propaganda officers. I often localize some hints on photo that make me think about a "propaganda" picture (by "propaganda", I mean a not real "in-combat" picture or an obvious fake). First, on most photos of this type, russians always (or at leats very often) represents germans as dead or losing. It could be a dead grenadier (often decorated : it means that even very good germans soldiers lose against the brilliant Red Army ), destroyed tanks, vehicles or, like here, aircraft. The more the symbol of nazism is well shown (iron crosses, swastika, balkenkreuz, SS runes...) and big, the more the photo is good ! That's propaganda ! A good hint, IMHO, is to imagine the position of the photographer when he took the pictures. Was he exposed ? Was he just trying a look over a trench ? Obviously, and it works for every photographers involved in war, you tend to take cover instead of trying to take a photo and being shot ! That idea in mind, this picture just looks fake for me ! Can you imagine yourself as the photographer, standing up in front of advancing enemies ? Also, germans tankers could make a big score by shooting at the shelter with some HE rounds... This wasn't the moment to take a photo, but to withdraw, and quickly before the panzers blow up your cover !! However, the first picture looks more realistic. I mean that the enemy cannot be localized and the photographer is not exposed to incoming fire. But the big swastika make the propaganda message too obvious. By the way, it's sometimes very difficult to clearly identify which photo is fake, which one was took in combat. Here again, I try to imagine the situation of the photographer. At which is distance is he from the soldiers, from the enemy, from a vehicle. Is he in cover, standing up ? Can a guys make a nice photo, running at the rear of a tank for cover, against incoming rounds and shrapnels ? If he only can to take a unique shot, it would be blurred, strangely composed. Remember the famous photo of Cappa of american GI's on the normandy beaches, morning of June the 6th. As soon as you can easely find a political symbol (red stars, swastika...), as soon as you can spot a retouched spot on the picture (made to hide markings, unit patches...), as soon as you can see soldiers dangerously and heroically sitting exposed in front of the enemy, you MAY be in presence of a fake ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest konrad Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Originally posted by Bogdan: If he only can to take a unique shot, it would be blurred, strangely composed. Remember the famous photo of Cappa of american GI's on the normandy beaches, morning of June the 6th. The Capa pictures are blurred from emulsion which ran in an over-heated drying cabinet.Thats why ,from four rolls ,only eleven pictures survived. Besides ,there was many careless photographers (Capa included ),many died in process. But true,usually its easy to recognise real action photo from staged one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bogdan Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Originally posted by lenakonrad : The Capa pictures are blurred from emulsion which ran in an over-heated drying cabinet.Thats why ,from four rolls ,only eleven pictures survived. Besides ,there was many careless photographers (Capa included ),many died in process. But true,usually its easy to recognise real action photo from staged one. Thanks lenakonrad, I didn't know that However, you've guessed what I mean. A picture really taken during fighting must present some characteristics which reveal the true combat conditions, and also the real situation where the photographer was : war, not propaganda ! Then, the real problem is to identify which are these characteristics... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Actually, true WWII 'combat' pictures seem to be few and far between. By combat I'm not counting picture of vehicles on the march or soldiers manning their weapons. I mean photos during actual combat. I recall actor/director John Huston was doing newsreel work around Mnt. Cassino and found actualy combat unfilmable (everybody tends to hide from view while he's being shot at). He resorted to restaging 'heroic' assaults a couple hils over for the camera. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Originally posted by Bogdan: However, the first picture looks more realistic. I mean that the enemy cannot be localized and the photographer is not exposed to incoming fire. What makes me doubt the picture is a composite is the obvious perspective distortion. The guy firing kneeling down would be something of a giant, like 2,5 meters high if the persepective was correct. Also, the tanks are not kicking up any dust or exhaust smoke. As soon as you can easely find a political symbol (red stars, swastika...), as soon as you can spot a retouched spot on the picture (made to hide markings, unit patches...), as soon as you can see soldiers dangerously and heroically sitting exposed in front of the enemy, you MAY be in presence of a fake ! There were several composite pictures made in the pre-war years which did not carry these obvious signs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Originally posted by Sergei: should settle it. Also visit his website if you haven't already! Thanks, great stuff! It seems a trip to Finland would be in order M. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bogdan Posted March 9, 2004 Share Posted March 9, 2004 Originally posted by Tero: What makes me doubt the picture is a composite is the obvious perspective distortion. The guy firing kneeling down would be something of a giant, like 2,5 meters high if the persepective was correct. Also, the tanks are not kicking up any dust or exhaust smoke....Yes, why not ? This distortion didn't appear to me. But it could be a "non-composite" picture as the photographer sit just behind the soldiers and the enemy is far away. However, you just right about smoke for tanks ! I didn't noticed that But is it a smoke dust I can see behind the PzIII ? Finally, we may had to check the shadows orientation. It sometimes give a the clue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Originally posted by Bogdan: as soon as you can spot a retouched spot on the picture (made to hide markings, unit patchesretouching is not helpful in determining real/fake. retouching was *very much* en vogue in those days, and even real combat pictures were retouched for a number of reasons once they were publicised. one reason that you conceded yourself was to hide unit markings, but much more it was done purely for aesthetic reasons...today we think differently, but at that time it was simply SOP for a newspaper picture to have contrasts and silhouettes made clear by a bit of retouching. btw: the originalposter should number his pictures to facilitate the discussion thereof. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PLM Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 there's really know way to tell for sure about any of these pictures. Even the seemingly legitimate ones like the t-34 could be posed for propaganda purposes even if it was in fact real. The one with the german plane tail sticking out of the ice appears fake but it could but it could just be the swastika was cleared off or added to the plane and the picture was posed. Any time pictures were being taken they were generally for propaganda purpose in some way. Its not like the soldiers in these pictures dont know there is a cameraman traveling with them. I highly doubt the first one is authentic. I doubt its made by the Germans since its showing Russian troops bravely holding. If fake then how did the Russians get those models of tanks? It appears to be a relatively early war picture so its probably not at the depicted time when captured German tanks are more available. even pictures of corpses are sometimes faked. There's a famous American Civil War photograph of what is supposed to be a confederate sharpshooter in the Devil's Den at Gettysburg. It turns out the photograph is of the same confederate soldier taken in a field nearby with the same rifle. *http://www.civilwarhistory.com [ March 09, 2004, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: PLM ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.