Saving private ryan.

[DXTR]

Although few (I believe one) tigers are still operational it frustrated me to see that the tiger in Saving Private Ryan was not a tiger but a T-34.... but hey you can't have it all and I wonder if Bovington was up for lending out their tiger (which as far as I can recall was being restored at the time). But Spielbergs use of equipment was as close to the real thing as they propably could get.. and that was one of the big 'stamp of authencity' that I appreciated.

But on the other hand, no ordinary audience would know the difference. And when it comes to accuracy you can allways be frustrated with Hollywood for not getting the details correct. So as with the 'tiger' you need to ask yourself whether the incorrect detail significantly alters the general historical information that the movie tries to convey. In other words does it matter whether the audience goes home and is of the opinion whether a sniping position in a churchtower is in accordance with basic sniping doctrine or not? I remember a director who was doing a movie on the yugoslav conflict. In the movie there is a scene of UN troops who comes upon a boobytrapped corpse. The scene was based on a reallife stuation. In reality the corpse was headless but the director made it have a head, since it would be too unbeliveable to an audience if the corpse was not only boobytrapped but also headless.

I do believe that directors make those choices and once in a while they piss of history buffs, like us since it is not in accordance with 'reality'. The question is as I said above whether that detail really mattered. In the movie U571 we see german submariners who shoot people in lifeboats. Since this only happened once (or have only been documented once) then it is a problem if the movie generates a general picture of german submariners as someone who gunned down lifeboats in general.

But hey thats just my opinion

[timobrienwells]

Hey DXTR,are you sure they weren't tigers in the street battle scene in SPR?I am pretty sure they were.The tank that they blew the traks off was definitely a tiger.It did not have the sloping armor of the T34,and its gun was an 88.If I am mistaken please let me know.Also is Bovington the only place where there is a tiger tank?If you have seen "Kelley's Heroes",there is a scene where there are 3 tigers in shot.The movie was shot in the former Yugoslavia,so maybe they had an alternative source for the tanks,I dont know.Surely there must be other specimens of this weapon system around.I would appreciate if you have any info. Regards tim wells

[Ron Klages]

Tim,

The required two Tigers for SPR were T-34s modified to look like a Tiger. The decision to use the T-34 was based on the height of the barrel. Tiger body shapes were built over the T-34s. Steve Lamonby and Peter Tomb were responsible for the modification. They had built the mockupped T-55 on a Saladin AC that had been used in the James Bond film Goldeneye. The Saladin had been used rather than a real T-55 because the Russians would not allow a tracked vehicle to run over the cobblestones in and around St. Petersburg.
Initially they had planned to utilize T-55 and modify to look like Tigers but after going to Bovington they decided that the height of the real Tigers gun better matched the T-34 guns height.
Two T34s were purchased, stripped down, rebuilt and serviced to insure they would not breakdown during filming causing expensive delays. Then the Tiger shape was built onto the T-34s.

Here is a listing of the equipment utilized in the filming besides the two modified T-34s.

5 kettenkrads
12 BMW motorcycles with sidecars and mounted mg--only three used
Opel Blitz radio van
Opel Blitz truck with drop side body
5 Kübelwagens but only one used
2 Steyr troop carrier
1 Mercedes L3000 troop carrier
Praga 6 wheel truck
Mercedes L4500A heavy truck
2 SdKfz 251s
2 Marder IIIs 7.5 gun which were found in Czechoslovakia aand one had actual damage from WW II.
5 Harley-Davidson motorcycles but none were used
9 jeeps
5 Dodge command cars but only 2 used
5 Dodge weapons carriers but only 3 used
3 Dodge staff cars
20 GMC 6 wheel trucks
2 Dodge ambulances
2 White halftracks
2 Sherman with large exhaust stacks but the scene was cut from the film
6 Waco glider replicas
a number of LCMs and LCVPs.

If you would like an excellent review of the film then get AFTER the BATTLE No. 103.

Best regards,

Ron Klages

[Casarez]

now, let me tell you band of brothers, produced by spielberg and tom hanks was really accurate based on the book, which i read 4 times(its really good)almost everything happend in life as the mini series shows it.

Actually I would recommend you read the green books about the battles the 101st was involved in to get more accurate information. A lot of Ambrose's accounts are biased in many respects.

winters was a hero, and was denied the medal of honor,

Major Winters was a great officer who was given the medal he deserved. He did not deserve the MOH and it was denied then and was denied recently by the current Sec of the Army. Winters led his men well but he did not take out the battery by himself. If he did then he would have been awarded the MOH. No officer in WWII was awarded the MOH for leading his troops. Some were awarded for actions they took while leading. For example an officer in the 1st Infantry Division personally assaulted and took out two pillboxes just by himself during the operation to cut off Aachen. Winters did not do anything even remotely similar to that.

The current drive to get Winters awarded the MOH came right after, yup you guessed it, the miniseries came out. So the Army, pretty smartly IMO, is not going to award the highest medal for bravery just due to popularity.

[DXTR]

thanks ron klages you saved me from explaining the details surrounding the modification of the t-34's.

Tim: Regarding Kelly's heroes. The film utilised modified t-34's as well instead of Tigers. When you see Saving Private Ryan or Kellys Heroes look for the roadwheels as a clear indication. You will notice that the 'tiger' tank in the movie does not have the same number of roadwheels. The difference between a tiger and a T-34 is when it comes to road wheels is that the wheels on the tiger overlap each other, while the T-34 has wheels that go side by side.

Best regards

[The Glock]

i dunno about you guys, but even with all the historical and military innacuracies within SPR, I still think it's the one of the best and most realistic WWII movies ever made. Let's not forget that this was the 1st WWII movie in it's kind to be as gritty and as realistic as it was, so it was bound to have flaws in it.
In fact, we should be so lucky to have a WWII movie like SPR, considering all of the ridiculous @#% that came before. Have any of you seen the Big Red One? After seeing that movie, SPR looked like a godsend to me. Can't even tell you how many inaccuracies were in that movie... and I don't even know much about the Big Red One!!! And what about the movie Patton? The Germans were driving modern tanks for god's sake!!!

Just don't take what we have for granted. If it wasn't for SPR, Hollywood WWII movies would still be about ridiculous, heroic adventures with no basis in military accuracy whatsoever. At least SPR tried at that.

[timobrienwells]

Well blow me down!Thanks Ron Klages and DXTR for clearing that up for me,but I am absolutely devastated to now know that they are not real tigers in either film.I am positively heart-broken.I am slightly embarrased at my insistence with DXTR about the identity of the tanks.Maybe we could all agree they did a pretty good job of the mock-ups.So Ron,because you always have a wealth of info,I have a couple of questions.At what time in 1942 was the Tiger put into combat,and in what strength?The only details I been able to get so far is that there was a combat test some time in the summer[?],and then the panzer divisions Manstein used inWinter Storm[16th and 17th??]were equipped with them.Thanks in advance Regards Tim Wells

[Ron Klages]

The first 4 Tiger Is with 1./sPA 502 were sent to HG Nord and they arrived at MGA station, outside of Leningrad on 29 August 1942. They rolled out of the town of MGA into a wooded area to their assembly locatiopn just after 1000 hours. At several minutes before 1100 hours the crews mounted up and prepared to move out for combat operations. It was no long before the first enemy positions came into view and the 4 Tigers opened fire on the dug in Soviet positions. Soon Russian artillery began falling and the Tigers split into two forces of 2 Tigers-one force to the right and 1 force to the left. It was not longer before 3 of the Tigers broke down because of mechanical difficulties. Not much of a combat debue. The three Tigers were recovered

Their second mission would not occur until 22 September 1942 with all 4 Tigers operational. In their advance aganist the Soviet positions all 4 were either damaged by Soviet AT guns or became stuck in the marschy ground in this area. Three of them were recovered and repaired but 1 was so stuck that it was evenytually blown up by engineers on 25 November 1942. It would be not until January 1943 that the first Tiger was lost to enemy action.

sPA 501 took Tigers into combat in North Africa December 1942 and sPA 503 was in action in southern Russia in January 1943.

That gives you a brief look.

best regards,

Ron Klages

[Reb]

To me, the "Tigers" in SPR were fine - even if the Germans didn't have any in line against the Americans! In film, close is often good enough - they looked plenty scary to me.

But the work the crew did to get that right puts a sword in the heart of the directors who allowed all those trashy films to go out with modern tanks - hell, there was one where the allies had M-47s and the Germans had Shermans. I'll always think of the M-47 tank as the one that did most of its action against giant Japanese monsters!

Since I'd personally seen hundreds of Shermans sitting around unused at Letterkenny PA (I have a great uncle who showed me the site) I've always been annoyed that Hollywood didn't at least bother to use real American tanks.

To me, SPR was great. Better than a Bridge To Far which was a big step forward. And we all gain by having directors raise the bar that way.

Since my favorite vehicle (for reasons that escape me!) is the SPW I was truly tickled to see them in this film and the hodge podge of SS uniforms was a nice touch. I could join in the chorus of criticisms with out much problem but frankly I'm pleased as heck that they made the movie.

I also liked the sort of organized confusion in the ranks of the American airborne as the rangers traveled through the lines. I thought it was a pretty fair picture of the war - all those dog tags made me fail very queasy and once again I thanked God that my father in law was kicked out of A/B for bad eyes. (he ended up in an inf div - battle of Germany - his outfit where he would have been [101st] was wiped out in Bastogne)

No body will ever truly please all the nitpickers out there, of which I am one. although the guy who did "Gettysburg" came as close as anyone is apt to get - the whole movie was chuck full of little tidbits for the historically minded.

cheers
Reb

[Bittrich]

I personally enjoyed the movie for the look and reactions of the soldiers during and after each skirmish, or battle. The D-day sequence made the movie. It was the most realistic battle sequence i've ever seen. Although the movie is loosely based on fact the equiptment looked authentic along with the uniforms.

Finally had SPR not been successful would Band of Brothers been made? BoB was an excellent mini-seris which for the most part fallowed the book.

[PaulJ]

...the movie is loosely based on fact...

What do you mean by that? That there was, in fact, a WWII that did have a beach assault landing on D-Day followed by a campaign in Normandy?

The movie's setting is based on fact, and many (but not all) of the historical details are quite accurate. However, the movie's story is *NOT* based upon fact.

There was never any mission to retrieve any soldier (airborne or leg infantry) due to the death of all his brothers, or for any other reason. There was an airborne soldier (one Private Fritz Niland) released from duty when his brothers were killed (it really was US policy to release sole surviving sons) but there never was any rescue mission to find him. He was simply visited by the padre who delivered the news. (see the Encyclopedia Britannica's informative website on this at http://search.eb.com/privateryan/page1.html)

The beach assault sequence, on the other hand, is -- as other posters have noted above -- superbly done and very accurate.

The story that starts up after that intro sequence, however, is complete fancy. This is one of the reasons why movies like this bother me so much -- people think they must be loosely based upon fact, and they enter the popular consciousness as such.

If someone who would post to this discussion forum could think it was loosely based upon fact, then just imagine the effect on the general populace.

[Soldat1942]

Nice videos.

[Bittrich]

PaulJ,
When I say that the move is loosely passed on fact I indeed was refering the the Niland Brothers. Although the true story was far less "Hollywood". Also they took a story and revolved it around WWII.

As for the Beach landings the scenes were realistic, but Omaha didn't fall in a half hour. In some cases the beach defenses were not breached for several hours after the Destroyers closed in and fired on the German defenses. That half hour sequence to me is loosely based on fact.

Although I really enjoy the movie from an entertainment point of view I am also aware of its flaws. I have previously been to the Britanica website, but thank you for the link. I really enjoyed the veterans testimony.

[PaulJ]

As for the Beach landings the scenes were realistic, but Omaha didn't fall in a half hour.

Quite right of course, but to be fair, it is not clear that the movie is meant to portray the beach as captured within the twenty-odd running minutes of the opening sequence. What movie runs in real time?

Look at the faces of Tom Hanks and his Top Sergeant at the end of the beach sequence, when they finally - exhausted - look back down on the now secured beach and remark upon what a scene it is. I have always thought that they both have "five o'clock shadows", whereas in the opening sequence they are clean shaven. That might be taken to indicate the passage of most of the day.

I have always been much impressed with the veracity of the beach assault scene. When Hanks reports to his battalion commander later in the first act, it transpires that he is meant to be the commander of Company C, 2nd Ranger Battaltion. Co C, 2nd Rangers really did land on Omaha, suffering more-or-less exactly as portrayed. As Bittrich notes, they did not reach the cliff-tops until the afternoon. (There is some debate about whether Co C landed at the Dog Green Sector of Omaha Beach as indicated in the opening subtitles, or in the Charlie sector, but that is real nit-picking.)

My only real reservation with the opening sequence is that Hanks is rather too old to be a 1944 company commander, or for that matter battalion commander.

The real commander of Co C, 2nd Rangers was one Captain Ralph E. Goranson, who survived the war actually. Here's another link:
http://www.sproe.com/c/company-c.html

[Bittrich]

PaulJ,
I agree with your observations. I really enjoyed the landing sequence for the realistic display of combat. I also was aware while watching it how long it really took, but for entertainment value the movie as a whole was worth watching. After seeing the movie I was stunned with the realism.