Colonel J Lee Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 I think I have the answer guys. Jag is the German word for "hunt" or "hunter". Panzer is the German word for "armor" or "tank". A Jagdpanther is a "hunting Panther" (a specific type of tank destroyer based on the Panther chassis). However, a Jagdpanzer is a "hunting tank", which could be ANY tank destroyer including Jagdpanthers, Jagdpanzer IVs, Hetzers, etc. It is a general name, not specific. So, IF one of the guys in the movies says "Jag" it does NOT rule out a reference to the tank in question being a Marder. AND it WAS DEFINITELY A MARDER. Jagpanthers were twice the weight and size (almost!) and not open-topped as the tank in the movie was. So, Jackson was saying "Jag" (tank destroyer), not Jagpanther. In sum, all Jagdpanthers ("hunting panthers") are Jagdpanzers ("hunting tanks"), but not all Jagdpanzers ("hunting tanks") are Jagdpanthers ("hunting panthers"). To confuse a Marder and a Jagpanther is like confusing a domestic cat and a Siberian Tiger. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Originally posted by Colonel J Lee: I think I have the answer guys. Jag is the German word for "hunt" or "hunter". Panzer is the German word for "armor" or "tank". A Jagdpanther is a "hunting Panther" (a specific type of tank destroyer based on the Panther chassis). However, a Jagdpanzer is a "hunting tank", which could be ANY tank destroyer including Jagdpanthers, Jagdpanzer IVs, Hetzers, etc. It is a general name, not specific. So, IF one of the guys in the movies says "Jag" it does NOT rule out a reference to the tank in question being a Marder. AND it WAS DEFINITELY A MARDER. Jagpanthers were twice the weight and size (almost!) and not open-topped as the tank in the movie was. So, Jackson was saying "Jag" (tank destroyer), not Jagpanther. In sum, all Jagdpanthers ("hunting panthers") are Jagdpanzers ("hunting tanks"), but not all Jagdpanzers ("hunting tanks") are Jagdpanthers ("hunting panthers"). To confuse a Marder and a Jagpanther is like confusing a domestic cat and a Siberian Tiger. The word you refer to is "Jagd" not "Jag", and it is pronounced, in German, with a "y" sound, and none of it matters because Jackson wasn't saying anything (he was making motions with his hands) and Miller never says either! To a GI, Brit or Canadian, they probably would have referred to a Marder III or a Jagdpanther as an "SP" for "self propelled gun", this term comes up often in histories and reminiscences. Likewise, when Matt Damon yells "panzerschreck" I find it amusing. No doubt they were trained to identify enemy weapons, and paratroops even had to learn how to use them. But most allied troops simply called any German rocket-firing anti-tank weapon a "bazooka". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cessna Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Originally posted by rune: You forget I did make a scenario based on the Battle of the bulge movie, features King Tigers against chaffees posing at Shermans.Man, I loved that scenario - it was a real good time. The ranks of M-24s advancing "on line" were perfect...! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzertruppe Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 I think "TANK ACE" has been reading to many issues of "Sgt Rock" and the "Haunted Tank". I too watched my copy of Saving Pvt Ryan last night and Mr.Dorosh is correct. NO JAGDPANTHERS! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel J Lee Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Michael: Yes, I know it's Jagd, not Jag, and that it's pronounced "y". I took quite a bit of German (but wasn't very good at it!). But my response was based upon what American soldiers would have said, which is JAG with a "J" sound since 99% of Americans don't know the "J" is pronounced as a "Y". Nevertheless, I was just saying that it could not possibly have been a Jagdpanther based on what Jackson allegedly said since "Jagd" (or "Jag" as he may have pronounced it) does not necessarily mean Jagdpanther. As for what he actually said, I don't recall as it has been awhile since I saw the movie. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank Ace Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 its still a jag, thats wat he says, poor dorosh just mad cause your wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simovitch Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 this is heating up over nothing. yea, i took 3 years of german too and have been wargaming for over 30 years (i got my name on a American Lt. in KGP III for cats sake (thanks to my brother) the fact is, is that there were no tigers, and definitely no jagdpanthers along the Mederet during the timeframe of SPR (or ever). Great movie, but some ahistorical elements. i dont know who said what, but i would definitely have remembered seeing a jgpz V in SPR. if he said "jag" (or jagd of course...) he was probably referring to the open topped TD's, or even the pzgr's with the 'fausts. Now I gotta watch that scene to see who's right. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Some_God Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Chill out. The only reason they used the Tigers is because it was the most popular tank of World War 2. One of the "panzers" is a Marder III and the other is a Swedish TD(?). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 SPR Online Encyclopedia The two tank destroyers used in Saving Private Ryan were found in Czechoslovakia by Steve Lamonby of Plus Film Services. According to Second Battle Group, a UK World War II Re-enactment Society that participated in the filming of the movie, the chassis of the two tank destroyers were original, but the hulls were rebuilt. Private Jackson identifies the tank destroyers that participate in the attack on Ramelle as "Panzers," which is the German word for "armor." Either Jackson was snoozing during German vehicle recognition classes, or he couldn't quite tell that they were tank destroyers (of two different kinds) so he opted to call them by a generic name. Captain Miller should know better, however, but he makes the same mistake. Neither of the two tank destroyers has a full complement of crewmembers. A valid point of criticism is the use of lightly-armored and vulnerable tank destroyers within the tight streets of a village. Without adequate support, such vehicles would be easy targets. Although the first tank destroyer seen is clearly a German Marder III (Ausf. M), the second (the one destroyed by Horvath) was a bit harder to identify, and appears to be a Swedish Sav m/43 assault gun, a type of armor that the 2nd SS Panzer Division would certainly not have been using. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simovitch Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 nice online source wicky. thanks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Some_God Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 That's where I go to finish any SPR arguement I'm having. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Originally posted by Wicky: [url= </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The two tank destroyers used in Saving Private Ryan were found in Czechoslovakia by Steve Lamonby of Plus Film Services. According to Second Battle Group, a UK World War II Re-enactment Society that participated in the filming of the movie, the chassis of the two tank destroyers were original, but the hulls were rebuilt. Private Jackson identifies the tank destroyers that participate in the attack on Ramelle as "Panzers," which is the German word for "armor." Either Jackson was snoozing during German vehicle recognition classes, or he couldn't quite tell that they were tank destroyers (of two different kinds) so he opted to call them by a generic name. Captain Miller should know better, however, but he makes the same mistake. Neither of the two tank destroyers has a full complement of crewmembers. A valid point of criticism is the use of lightly-armored and vulnerable tank destroyers within the tight streets of a village. Without adequate support, such vehicles would be easy targets. Although the first tank destroyer seen is clearly a German Marder III (Ausf. M), the second (the one destroyed by Horvath) was a bit harder to identify, and appears to be a Swedish Sav m/43 assault gun, a type of armor that the 2nd SS Panzer Division would certainly not have been using.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel J Lee Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Michael and I weren't getting heated; I sure wasn't. We were just having a somewhat separate "language discussion". I agreed with him the whole time that there were no Jagdpanthers in the movie. It's just that sometimes you can't tell the TONE of someone's remarks because you can't HEAR them or SEE them. Anyway, I guess we got our conclusive weigh-in from Wicky. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorntk421 Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 If you own a dvd copy of the movie turn on the subtitles and you will see that the line is... "Enemy from the East...He sees Tiger tanks 2 of them, Panzer tanks, 2 of them, infantry, 50 plus change." Just thought I would clear that up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank Ace Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 LOL oh well it looked damn near close to a jagdpanther too me. Its probably some hollywood creation and not a real "whatever the hell it is". The tigers in this movie are really just 1 and that 1 is not a real tiger, ironically its a T-34 made to look like one, same one used on Heavy metal episode about the Tiger tank. So i guess we were all wrong, its probably some hollywood creation meaning to look like a marder or a Jagd. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Some_God Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Yeah, well to a couple of old people that bitch about everything this movie is not perfect. But no movie is. To the average movie goer and IMHO, this is the best warmovie there is out there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel J Lee Posted April 1, 2004 Share Posted April 1, 2004 I totally agree, Some God; there is no war movie that surpasses it in intensity and realism that I've seen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chelco Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 What about "Windtalkers"? Nah, kidding. "Windtalkers" is a joke. BTW I realized that Ramelle-Saving Private Ryan scenario was in my special edition CMBO. I played it and I suffered a terrible defeat. Also, honorary mention to the tactical AI of this game: the AI germans avoided the main street that leads to the bridge. Ocassionally some squads rushed across the main street from house to house. What a fight! When like 3 houses of the main street were secured by German troops, the AI sended a Tiger along the main street. This tank kept going back and forward, like fearing Sgt Horvach's bazooka. The only flaw I noticed was that the AI sended it's Marder along the main street at very early times. Soon, it realized that it was stupid and pulled it back into a safe location. I know, I know: if you are really up to a challenge, you should go PBEM! But for tactically challenged guys like me, the AI of this game is the best I've ever seen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PS Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 After wearing those socks for more than six days was that Tiger knocked-out by a stinky bomb? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Some_God Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 Get out of this forum!!!!... nub. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PS Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 Sorry, but how can you take any film like that seriously. Hundreds of thousands of young men died during WW2 so why not make scenarios about their real sacrifice. I will tell you about a real life "Private Ryan". A friend of the family who is now 83 lost all 3 of his brothers. One in North Africa, one in Normandy and the last one in Burma. He served right through the N.African Campaign and part of Italy before being sent home. No, not to sit the rest of the war out but to train for the Normandy landings and the rest of the N.W European Campaign. He very nearly got sent out to the Far-East but Japan surrendered before his training was finished. If you are going to make the scenario as real as possible forget the Tiger tanks (none in the America sector on 13 June), replace these with some old french thing, Pzfpfw IV or a Stug or two. I think it was a real Marder used in the film and Jagdpanthers were not in Normandy at that point in time and once again only on the British sector at the end. So if a GI saw one he wouldn't have know what it was. It has been said that GIs called every gun they faced a 88 and every tank with a long barrel a Tiger. But who didn't. I can remember reading on an earlier forum about a similar question and the comment that any German tank commander using Tigers like that would have been shot, if he had survived. Crews were not even allowed to smoke in a Tiger. Real life don't always make good films or scenarios. Sorry for this gripe and my earlier glip comment about the socks but it is now coming up to the 60th anniversary of the Normandy Landings. I don't know how many of you are America but you lost a lot of men in Europe (see Tank Ace's quote) and so did the Canadians. All those thousands of miles away from home don't forget that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Some_God Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 I like and worship SPR because I want to. I lost most of my uncles and other relatives to the Nazis, but I know no one gives a **** so I'm not going to explain. You could bitch and moan about how imperfect this movie is to you. Like it was said before they used Tigers because of popular demand. Sorry for going all out on this but I couldn't keep it in. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auggy Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 Some_God-- read your quote. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PS Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 Do explain because some of us do "give a ****" and I don't think "get out of this forum" is going all out? The relatives you lost were to the Germans, using the term Nazis just lets them off. Someone put them in power. I am not a great fan of war films and find them either hammy Second World War propaganda or modern gung-ho. Suppose we can't and won't show the real horrors of war. Good luck with the scenario. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 I thought the first half an hour - after the schmaltzy opening - were stunning. The rest of the movie was enjoyable, but not particularly credible. 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.