Saving Private Ryan

[LT. James Cater]

For starters yes it was a Marder, not a JagdPanther.

Second i think the movie is a nice tribute to American soldiers who died far from home, in places where they didn't have to be.

Dying for a failure in diplomacy a mere 20 something years after their forbearers did.

And in many of the same places.

[FM Paul Heinrik]

I found "A Bridge Too Far" to be a better war movie, the best WW2 movie imho. SPR is very intense but after watching it a lot you start to see the special effect setups and you step back from the "realism" and start thinking of all the flawed tactics used for the sake of cinematography. Speilberg put a lot of "hollywood" into SPR and it shows after a couple of screenings. But to the films credit it was very, very realistic for a 1st time screening and most buffs didn't catch the graffs until later reflection.

[SoDak]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

I thought the first half an hour - after the schmaltzy opening - were stunning. The rest of the movie was enjoyable, but not particularly credible.

Yeah, when it came out, I remember seeing a tv show with interviews of some real vets.

They all said the same thing; beach scenes were done right, everything else was pure hollywood.

[A.E.B]

Hi all

I think the problem with the tank destroyers is quite explainable.

There were two broad Marder III superstructure designs based on the Czech 35t tank chassis.

The first models had the gun mounted centrally on the hull, much like the earlier Marder II.

Later models were redesigned and the gun mount was moved to the rear of the chassis.

Both the Marder destroyed by the molotov cocktails and the Marder destroyed by the Bazooka are the central gun mount design.

You need to copy and paste these links.

http://www.sproe.com/images/screenshots/tankdestroyer-01-large.jpg

This picture from the site Dorosh linked to clearly shows two crew members on the open rear deck of the Marder III.

http://www.sproe.com/images/screenshots/tankdestroyer-02-large.jpg

After one crew member is shot, the remaining gunner disappears behind the gunshield.

This vehicle is definitely meant to represent a Marder III, not a Jadg or a SM/43 Swedish assault gun.

You will notice that the actual gun mount is a mockup, as the real Marder III did not mount the gun in a ball-type mount. Instead a 75mm ATG was mounted, gun shield and all, and the crew were protected by a crude shield of raised armour plating.

http://www.sproe.com/images/screenshots/tankdestroyer-04-large.jpg

This image clearly shows what is supposed to be a mid-gun mount Marder III.

Regards

A.E.B

[Royal_Dragoon_Guard]

You fellas getting carried away or what? If you are all talking about the "Saving Private Ryan" movie I saw - set in Normandy 1944, you can forget Tigers and Jagdpanthers. Truth is there wasn't a single one of either of these AFV's anywhere on the entire American front! The US airborne faced old French tanks from 1940, plus a handful of Marder open topped tank destroyers. No Panthers faced by the US airborne then. 251 halftracks did arrive later in the campaign on that sector, but I dont believe there were any around St. Mere Eglise for example. Don't believe what you see (or hear) in the movies!

[Royal_Dragoon_Guard]

I'd agree with that Sirocco, the opening scene depicting Omaha beach was outstanding - as good as you will probably ever see. That was a heroic landing. But afterwards the film kind of had too much to live upto, maybe that's why it got a bit fictional, because after an opening like that, how do 1940's French tanks and even Marders look threatening? So they substituted some of them with Tigers! Then they turned the liberation of Ste Mere Eglise into something resembling Stalingrad! Trouble is a lot of people take these things for gospel, and I don't think the US Airborne needed their fine achievements exagerating. For the record the only airborne troops fighting off a true counter-attack by a Panzer Division was over on the British flank. Elements of 6th Airborne Div. held off 21st Panzer Div. in some very bloody and costly fighting, with PIATS and a few 6 pounder AT guns, very few were left unscathed at the end of it, as a visit to Ranville cemetary will show. But the Mark IV's and Panzer Grenadiers in Half Tracks were stopped, and the landing at Sword beach could proceed. Still waiting for a movie about that one though.

[Sirocco]

There's a wealth of stories to be told about Commonwealth forces, whether it's 6th A/B Div, 3rd British or 3rd Canadian Div's, for example, but they will remain untold on the modern big screen until the British film industry starts making ambitious films again.

[Franko]

Not the old "spr" debate again. Jeez.

[Royal_Dragoon_Guard]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

There's a wealth of stories to be told about Commonwealth forces, whether it's 6th A/B Div, 3rd British or 3rd Canadian Div's, for example, but they will remain untold on the modern big screen until the British film industry starts making ambitious films again.

That's all too true I'm afraid. Guess its all a case of money these days. Shame because people's opinions are swayed with these war films. For example in the Normandy museums they sell SPB in French. Now you kind of expect accuracy with a film purchased in an official museum don't you? Truth is that many foreigners think the film is a kind of documentary. In all truth "The Longest Day" was a far more representative and balanced war film. Sure it had mistakes, they all do, but it didn't totally enter the realms of fantasy! Do you recall the fuss caused in the UK by its release? What was it that the film said about Montgomery in it - something about him failing to break out, so the US was going to have to do it! Roughly at a time when the British and Canadians faced 7 Panzer Divisions, mostly SS, to the 1 facing the Americans. That went down well in the British press didn't it!!