Should films in which History gets 'The Hollywood Treatment' be allowed?

Braveheart and U-571 are the obvious classics of bending History to fit a good story. Obviously when discussing history there is always going to be an objective viewpoint but given the amount of historical inaccuraces in these films do they get people interested in history or is it being re-written completely?

P.S

I'm not exactly sure how many Americans it was that invaded Troy, I'll have to read over the illiad again :joke:

"Hollywood history" has been happening since the time human beings could write and record history. Stories being distorted, exaggerated etc. is the norm. It's not something that Hollywood suddenly invented so you can't really blame them for this. Historians call this "story cycles" and in cases that are both well documented historically with many histories written from the time it happened to the modern day and are part of the popular entertainment as well you can actually trace the story cycles.

Actually, Uiler, while you are compltely correct of course, the current situation is absolutely new.
Until the end of the Cold War, there were at least two versions of history spread around. Today, Hollywood has a monopoly (Europe, some Asian countries as well as the Arabic world do produce their onw versions; but, those are no longer distributed outside their very own regions).

I think it is pretty funny that U-571 and Braveheart are mentioned as prime examples, btw.
Don't you think the Hollywood depiction of Chinese, Russians, American Indians, Germans, French...is BY FAR less accurate then the one of GB? :lol:

history is always bias--it's written by the winners.

history is always bias--it's written by the winners.

Too true.

Personally i've left many movies unwatched because of the "changes" made to history in the movies to fit the story.

Well, Hollywood is at least consistent in this. Not only do they
twist history around to their own purposes, but they also
take a lot of liberties with the plots/characters of novels they
adapt, too.

Don't you think the Hollywood depiction of Chinese, Russians, American Indians, Germans, French...is BY FAR less accurate then the one of GB? :lol:

Unfortunately I'd disagree. Films like 'The Patriot' for example depict as truth actrocities which historians on both sides of the Atlantic say did not happen. The rest of the time GB is portrayed in the same stereotypical way as every other nation is.

It should be encouraged in the masses, as it does lead some people to an interest to the subject. Also, the education system in the UK simply does not function as far as history teaching goes.
These Hollywood movies are the closest thing most people will come to learning something about past.

And as for the few, well it's always good fun (and an ego boost) to talk about how much smarter we are than the plebians/Hollywood.

Unfortunately I'd disagree. Films like 'The Patriot' for example depict as truth actrocities which historians on both sides of the Atlantic say did not happen. The rest of the time GB is portrayed in the same stereotypical way as every other nation is.

Actually the much criticised burning of the Church with the townsfolk inside portrayed in the film The Patriot, did have a slight parallel with an actual event during the Revolutionary War. There were however two slight differences in reality:

(1) The building was a School not a Church
(2) It was the American "Patriots" that did the burning*


*It was the Moravian Missionary settlement of Gnadenhutten. Ninety-Six unarmed Native American Christians (men, women and children) who were of tribes considered allied to the British were massacred there in 1782.


.

Please sink U-571 and its evil occupants of wa4r criminal Germans who apparently gun down people in boats for thrils, while Harvey Keitel and John Bon Jovi save the war by screwing around in the submarine while being attacked by incompetant gemrans who have nothing better to do than shout random teutonic words, and torturing American sailors till they cry.

Hollywood sells entertainment not history and If you don't like the films then don't watch them. When someone watches the Patriot, of course they’ll know none of the events actually took place but just some action flick set in the past.

Even shows that are supposed teach the viewer about history like documentaries on the history channel are filled with absolute rubbish. They use too many Computer graphics and imagery with no meaning and repeat what they say several times as if the viewer is stupid. I feel if they set up a program it should be like a history lecture with more information and less flashy graphics to detract from the learning. But personally this is coming from someone who enjoys sitting through a history lecture.

I'm not sure how you can stop hollywood history, after all movie makers will now and always have made movies for a certain market. Zulu for example has a good share of innacuracies in it but wasn't a Hollywood production, and you can bet that the early British depictions of the Charge of the Light Brigade weren't exactly perfectly true to history either. The lesson here would probably be that bias and inaccuracy creeps into most movies, and who this favours depends on the origins of the movie. We see Hollywood as the prime cause of such awful movies mostly because it is the biggest source of the blockbuster movies for most of us.

I'd agree with Reisstiu also that TV documentaries aren't much better either. One shown on a UK history channel but made by a US company was on battleships and talked about Tirpitz. Not only did it fail to make a single mention of the British efforts which crippled and eventually sank her, it implied that Iowa had fought Tirpitz in an engagement and Iowa had come off the better. Anyone with even an elementary knowledge of Tirpitz would know this is rubbish, the two ships never fought and Tirpitz only fired her guns on one occasion in anger during a shore bombardment. One gets the impression that the documentary may have been intended for a US audience originally...

Personally I'm just waiting for a rewrite of Henry V with Will Smith in the title role, his gallant men of the 101st Airborne fighting the evil English empire and evoking memories of 9/11, freedom and democracy.

Surely not even movie makers would go that far? :hmm:

Well said, Private Hudson.

I know a lot of American documentaries can be bad but can the same be said across the pond? I've seen a series of British documentaries called "Battle of Britain" which reflects on major attempts to conquer Britain by past European powers. It seems rather well done but it overuses computer simulations at the expense of conveying actual information to the viewer. I've noticed a small bias. For example, they set up mock interviews with the invading force and they are always filmed in some sort of prison. One episode was a German pilot in a British POW camp; another was a Spanish Armada sailor in a dungeon, etc. Overall it seems more informative than the average documentary on the History Channel



Personally I'm just waiting for a rewrite of Henry V with Will Smith in the title role, his gallant men of the 101st Airborne fighting the evil English empire and evoking memories of 9/11, freedom and democracy.

Surely not even movie makers would go that far? :hmm:

After the travesty known as "I' Robot", I wouldn't be surprised actually. Will Smith could’ve just as well saved his money and just urinated on the grave of Isaac Asimov.

I know a lot of American documentaries can be bad but can the same be said across the pond?

I generally don't watch too many when I can help it. Family do tend to buy me VHS documentaries and there is usually at least 1/2 a dozen factual errors inside the hour or so they last. Example "The tiger tank was one of the most feared tanks in the Wermacht's armoury". Nothing wrong there, just a shame they show pictures of Panthers as the Tiger is being discussed....

The few I do watch I tend to pick out from known historians like Michael Wood. His series on Alexander the Great and the later one on the Conquistadores was phenomenal frankly. He tends away from detail and more towards character analysis and has a slight tendency to believe myth rather than truth, but his works are excellent. At one place somwhere near India he was talking about the moment when Alexander lead an assault up a siege ladder onto the city walls. Any other guy probably would have stood on the walls to deliver the piece, Wood actually got a rickety old ladder and delivered it as he climbed the walls himself! He has a tendency to go to pretty extreme legnths to convey his love of subjects, and it's this passion which makes his documentaries worth watching.

Michael Wood's series on Alexander was the best documentary that I have ever seen. Everything about it was pretty much perfect. And not a computer graphic in sight.

I agree that you can't blame Hollywood alone for this. They aren't nearly as bad as, say, Sir Walter Scott! And it's not just "historical fiction" either. Pretty much anything you get on a screen that is intended for a mass audience is entertainment first and information second. Just look at any news channel. Yesterday was my final day of work at a major and for the moment unnamed major 24-hour news channel, where I worked for nearly three years, and I can assure you that what Hollywood does to history, journalists do to current affairs. Not in the same way (they don't, as a rule, actually lie) but to the same effect (selective reporting).

Hollywood history would be hard-pressed to come anywhere near the historical "inaccuracies", portrayed in most "period" Bollywood movies. Add hoarse jingoism and you've got yourself the end of history as we know it:p

Hollywood history would be hard-pressed to come anywhere near the historical "inaccuracies", portrayed in most "period" Bollywood movies. Add hoarse jingoism and you've got yourself the end of history as we know it:p

The Chinese and HK TV versions of Chinese history are...interesting as well :) Great entertainment, but on a historical accuracy level, well...

Well, Hollywood History is just as valid as other classic sources; Goebbels, Pravda in the Stalin era, Chairman Mao's red book, etc etc.

Michael Wood's series on Alexander was the best documentary that I have ever seen. Everything about it was pretty much perfect. And not a computer graphic in sight.

Oh come now be fair, he did use a computer of sorts on that flight over Iraq to describe one of the ancient battles there ;)

Did you happen to catch his series on the Conquistadores by any chance?

Well, Hollywood is at least consistent in this. Not only do they
twist history around to their own purposes, but they also
take a lot of liberties with the plots/characters of novels they
adapt, too.

War of the Worlds for example

Oh come now be fair, he did use a computer of sorts on that flight over Iraq to describe one of the ancient battles there ;)

Did you happen to catch his series on the Conquistadores by any chance?

Ah, must have forgotten that computer bit. Damn!

I think I saw a little bit of one of the Conquistadores programmes and it seemed pretty interesting. But I missed the rest. I only saw one of his recent series on the stories behind great myths (the first one, on the Queen of Sheba) and that was really good too - though still I think Alexander was probably better. Unfortunately I don't really have time to watch TV these days.

That being said I do find that T.V documentaries are alot better at sticking to history than films

While conceding that historical films - wherever they are made - tend to be crapola, still, I am for any medium that provokes any level of historical debate and discussion, and definitely very apprehensive about the concept of a government, state or any group having sole control over "official history". So Hollywood, Bollywood or whoever makes a historical flick like The Patriot or Mulan; instead of trying to get them banned, why not write a letter and try to get your own views on why the film is historically distorted or inaccurate out there? the topic gets some exposure, and people get exposed to other points of view.

While conceding that historical films - wherever they are made - tend to be crapola, still, I am for any medium that provokes any level of historical debate and discussion, and definitely very apprehensive about the concept of a government, state or any group having sole control over "official history". So Hollywood, Bollywood or whoever makes a historical flick like The Patriot or Mulan; instead of trying to get them banned, why not write a letter and try to get your own views on why the film is historically distorted or inaccurate out there? the topic gets some exposure, and people get exposed to other points of view.

Good Point :goodjob:

I tend to watch alot of TV docs, one seires of them Battlefield on one of the PBS is okay. The problem with that series is that in one show it'll be go about how the sherman could take almost anything the germans threw at it, then the next show it'll tell ya the Shermans were crap that burst into flames even when it gets a glancing blow




I am seriously, absolutly dreading "The Few" I think thats what its called. The Tom Cruise film about an american flying for the RAF during the Battle of Britian.

I am seriously, absolutly dreading "The Few" I think thats what its called. The Tom Cruise film about an american flying for the RAF during the Battle of Britian.

I heard about that a few years ago but I thought it was a myth because it hadn't come out. I'm pretty confident that there will be outrage over here when that happens.

I know that whoever pays the piper calls the tune, but don't you, especailly as a Canadian get upset by the complete lack of any other nation being mentioned in Private Ryan other than US and Germany?

That's not true, they mention Monty just long enough to insult him ;)

That's not true, they mention Monty just long enough to insult him ;)

Ahh yes, sorry forgot that bit :crazyeye:

One other thing I see as a failing in the Hollywood history section is the addition of a central love story where one usually doesn't exist, or it is much less significant.

One other thing I see as a failing in the Hollywood history section is the addition of a central love story where one usually doesn't exist, or it is much less significant.

I know that whoever pays the piper calls the tune, but don't you, especailly as a Canadian get upset by the complete lack of any other nation being mentioned in Private Ryan other than US and Germany?

This gets mention a lot--why? Is it strange that a movie about a U.S. soldier doesn't mention every other nation? The movie IS NOT about D-day, its about private ryan--an america. Should I get upset if a movie about the battle of Stalingrad fails to mention america?

Should I get upset if a movie about the battle of Stalingrad fails to mention america?

No because no Americans were there (Unless you count Ed Harris in 'Enemy at the Gates!).

There were however, Canadians and British landing in Normandy and although I know they were on seperate beachheads, surely as Tom Hanks leads his merry men through France he might come across a Brit, a Canadian or even the odd Frenchman too.

This gets mention a lot--why? Is it strange that a movie about a U.S. soldier doesn't mention every other nation? The movie IS NOT about D-day, its about private ryan--an america

That's my usual defence for the whole attitude the soldiers in the movie express about the British. In 1944 the unspoken rivalry between the American and British armies would make it very likely that soldiers in each would be blaming the other for the various allied failings. Let's face it, infantrymen of any army never have a problem insulting their generals either, even more if it's a foreign one. :D

There were however, Canadians and British landing in Normandy and although I know they were on seperate beachheads, surely as Tom Hanks leads his merry men through France he might come across a Brit, a Canadian or even the odd Frenchman too.

As far as I understand the movie the route Hanks and co use to reach Ryan takes them directly away from the nearby British Gold Beach. The Canadians and French (well French troops) were even further away than that. I'd find it highly unlikely that he'd see troops from any of those armies on the way.

Pearl Harbor should be banned ;)

A girl in my class talked about how much she lowed it and next thing i now im raving about how inacurate it is and that it was nothing like that.

I am seriously, absolutly dreading "The Few" I think thats what its called. The Tom Cruise film about an american flying for the RAF during the Battle of Britian.
There were Americans who served in the RAF during the Battle of Britain...they even had their own squadren. Ya gotta give them some credit...

There were Americans who served in the RAF during the Battle of Britain...they even had their own squadren. Ya gotta give them some credit...

he plays a pilot named fiske--shot down 0 planes ( real person )

And not to bad mouth the americans that fought in BoB, they did join a war their country didn't want to be apart of so they had balls, but offically there weren't that many of them and they didn't make much of a dent. Real credit(other the the Brits themselfs) should go to the free Polish pilots. If the movie has no mention of them I'm throwing popcorn at the movie screen :lol:


I understood what beach Saving Private Ryan took place at so I knew they probably didn't meet any brits or canucks, no prob there. I do wish they were more accuarte in the movie though(I understand they couldn't in some places. The Omaha beach landings were much worse in real life then what they show in the movie), and the usual German army ineptitude that Hollywood puts in. They take it to such extremes you would think a 5 year could sneez on them and the whole german army would collapse.

The Omaha beach landings were much worse in real life then what they show in the movie), and the usual German army ineptitude that Hollywood puts in. They take it to such extremes you would think a 5 year could sneez on them and the whole german army would collapse.

I wrote a piece recently which argued that SPRs portrayal of the Germans was not terribly innacurate. I certainly don't believe the portrayal of them was that bad either.

I wrote a piece recently which argued that SPRs portrayal of the Germans was not terribly innacurate. I certainly don't believe the portrayal of them was that bad either.

Apart from the officer going:

"Ah, ze town ist held by ze Amerkanen. Zey ar elikely to be armed with ze bazooka-type-fausts, ya, und der grenades, and zey vill not give up easily.
So ve will send unsere tanks through cramped French streets mit tall houses on eizer side, mit minimal infantrie support.
Ich will get der Iron Cross fur zis!"

I wrote a piece recently which argued that SPRs portrayal of the Germans was not terribly innacurate. I certainly don't believe the portrayal of them was that bad either.


I sorta have a problem with it cause everytime I see a documentry on the landings they always go on about how the American's face the 352nd a semi-elite(I say Semi cause I'm not sure how many of the orginal troops are still alive come this point, they were on R&R at this point) anyways, a group of combat hardend troops that provided the biggest resistance(Other then that tank force that made it to the beach) for the entire D-Day Op. And in the movie they're pushovers

I sorta have a problem with it cause everytime I see a documentry on the landings they always go on about how the American's face the 352nd a semi-elite(I say Semi cause I'm not sure how many of the orginal troops are still alive come this point, they were on R&R at this point) anyways, a group of combat hardend troops that provided the biggest resistance(Other then that tank force that made it to the beach) for the entire D-Day Op. And in the movie they're pushovers

Two points:
a) I wouldn't exactly say they're pushovers
b)A lot of the Normandy coatline was defended by foreign "Hiwis" (Hilfswilligen) troops picked out of Eastern occupied countries and forced to protec the coast. This is show when after the beach is stormed, and the Americans soot all of the surrendering Germans, a couple of mud-caked figures come out shouting in Czech, and they got shot, when the guy says "Hey, I just washed for dinner" or something.

Are we watching the same movie? Whenever I see the D-day scene is Saving Private Ryan it seems to me the US soldiers get slaughtered and are only successful by overwhelming the garrison. The Germans soldiers don't look like Pushovers to me.

Apart from the officer going:

You know you're tempting me to explain at legnth :mischief:

I sorta have a problem with it cause everytime I see a documentry on the landings they always go on about how the American's face the 352nd a semi-elite(I say Semi cause I'm not sure how many of the orginal troops are still alive come this point, they were on R&R at this point) anyways, a group of combat hardend troops that provided the biggest resistance(Other then that tank force that made it to the beach) for the entire D-Day Op. And in the movie they're pushovers

The 352nd were vetrans of the Russian front. In the whole of the western front they were the sole infantry formation deemed able to perform effective offensive operations. I'd say for those reasons it's not unreasonable to place an expectation of good performance from them. However the specific suggestions of poor performance in the film usually centre around the last battle which wasn't the 352nd. As NC says, the troops at the beachead weren't even from the division either.

P.S

I'm not exactly sure how many Americans it was that invaded Troy, I'll have to read over the illiad again :joke:

Call me a curmudgeon, if you will, but I suspect the "Iliad" takes quite a few liberties with history too...

You know you're tempting me to explain at legnth :mischief:

I know it, and I unrepentantly say that any officer stupid enough to send tanks through without prior infantry cover deserves a cross, no iron about it.

Like Michael Wittmann? Like some of the 9th SS commanders in september 1944?

Like Michael Wittmann? Like some of the 9th SS commanders in september 1944?
Michael Wittmann was very lucky indeed that the Churchill that he came ouyt next to at point-blacnk only disabled his tank.
Noone in their right minds would send a tank through a thin, rubble filled street with infantry defendind (except the Russians).
It's just asking for bazookas, TNT, PIATs, Molotovs, Grenades, mines and flamethrowers intoevery orifice of the tank.

Michael Wittmann was very lucky indeed that the Churchill that he came ouyt next to at point-blacnk only disabled his tank.

Luck or not he still did it, and if the leading tank ace of Germany did it, and if the Germans of 9th SS operated similar tactics for much of the fighting around Arnhem, what makes you believe that the adoption of that tactic in the film is so unrealistic? We have quite clear evidence that the SS were not above using that kind of tactic after all.

Noone in their right minds would send a tank through a thin, rubble filled street with infantry defendind (except the Russians).

I don't recall any proof from the film that the Germans knew what they were facing, I do however recall the Germans sending troops round the flank of the main street bypassing this problem. Seems to me like they were in a rush and had no time to probe the town for what they were up against so just decided to attack quickly in two main directions.

I could like I said go into more detail.

I'm saying that nay tank commander worth his salt (and who wasn't in the damn msot powerful tank around) would be more cautious.
For example, it would be an unnaceptable tactic in a Russian town.

I'm saying that nay tank commander worth his salt (and who wasn't in the damn msot powerful tank around) would be more cautious.

So wittmann wasn't a good tank commander? :hmm:

So wittmann wasn't a good tank commander? :hmm:
Overall, yes, he had his moments.
But
a) he made mistakes
b) he got killed.

I don't recall any proof from the film that the Germans knew what they were facing, I do however recall the Germans sending troops round the flank of the main street bypassing this problem. Seems to me like they were in a rush and had no time to probe the town for what they were up against so just decided to attack quickly in two main directions.
I don't have a clear picture of the final german assault in "Saving private Ryan", but I have a very keen memory of being annoyed about the "Tigers" attacking and that they are "SS" in the film. Both these "facts" I would regard as "Hollywood facts". A couple of Panzer Jaegers w. 76.2 guns? OTOH I would not complain about without checking facts, they where in several units along the entire Normandy battlefield.

But Tigers!! In the American "sector", my gut feeling says no way? At least not that early in the fight. At the time of Operation Cobra with PzLehr (Army not SS: 130 div cannot remember if they had tigers? Most of the Tigers were in independent Hvy battalions from 501 ->) at St.Lo maybe but wasn't the only SS division deployed vs. the Americans in the beginning the "light" 17th PzGrenadiers and they had no Tigers!

I guess the Tigers in the film are supposed to portray the "subjective view/feeling" of the americans under attack. Every tank is a Tiger and every heavy gun is an 88! They saw them as Tigers and the director wants the audience to see what the soldiers thought they saw. LOL The majority of armour on the Cotentin peninsula, IIRC, were obsolete french tanks in german hands and Stugs and a few Pzjaegers in 91st FsJ Div.

At least the ordnance used in both Ryan and Band of Brothers are realistic even if they are sometimes used the wrong way.

I vividly remember the first time I saw the episode of Band of Brothers when the took out the 105 battery. Before the attack they talked about 88's and when the attack was launched and they where 105's my first reaction was, another american film with no sence of realism. But later they made comments about them actually being 105's and not 88's. And I was happy!!!

It only showed the way the soldiers regarded their enemy: as I stated before, every tank is a tiger and every gun is an 88!

b) he got killed.
In a carpetbombing raid, not in a tank battle. That should be said in his defense.

Overall, yes, he had his moments.

And the evidence from Arnhem would also be "mistakes" that of course were exceptional actions from the SS. I guess if that doesn't show you that such attacks were commonplace from SS formations then nothing will persuade you of it.


I don't have a clear picture of the final german assault in "Saving private Ryan", but I have a very keen memory of being annoyed about the "Tigers" attacking and that they are "SS" in the film.

I wasn't talking about what vehicles were present as this is a topic that we all know the movie is very innacurate on. That topic has been discussed to death already frankly. What I was discussing was how realistic it is that the Germans of that period would attack in that manner.

In a carpetbombing raid, not in a tank battle. That should be said in his defense.
I thought he was killed in a Sherman ambush.

And the evidence from Arnhem would also be "mistakes" that of course were exceptional actions from the SS. I guess if that doesn't show you that such attacks were commonplace from SS formations then nothing will persuade you of it.
I'm not saying he wan't an exceptional tank commander, nor that the SS were useless (albeit not as "elite" as often made out), but to drive down a street, filled with rubble, sided on either side with tall houses, withot having secured it earlier, or with a larger force is verging on suicidal.

I wasn't talking about what vehicles were present as this is a topic that we all know the movie is very innacurate on. That topic has been discussed to death already frankly. What I was discussing was how realistic it is that the Germans of that period would attack in that manner.
That is what happens when you jump in late in a discussion... Sorry :blush:

I'm not saying he wan't an exceptional tank commander, nor that the SS were useless (albeit not as "elite" as often made out), but to drive down a street, filled with rubble, sided on either side with tall houses, withot having secured it earlier, or with a larger force is verging on suicidal.

Feel free to call it suicidal if you like, but it's hardly unrealstic, nor would it be a particularly stupid way to approach the position given the situation the film lays out for the battle.

Co-incidentally, 50-60 men to roughly 15 is having a much larger force.

Feel free to call it suicidal if you like, but it's hardly unrealstic, nor would it be a particularly stupid way to approach the position given the situation the film lays out for the battle.

Co-incidentally, 50-60 men to roughly 15 is having a much larger force.
I would have assuemed that in his situation, you'd assuem t least a platoon in the town.

I thought he was killed in a Sherman ambush.

If this "googled" report is to be believed. I had read the story of the bombing and late discovery wrong. It was his grave not the tank that was discovered in 1983 and his fate finally learnt. Since the grave was an anonymous grave the war diary from the incident leading up to the burial could be traced and:

Finally, it was proven that Wittmann's Tiger was destroyed by fire from tanks of "A" Squadron of Northamptonshire Yeomanry. British Firefly crew observed advancing Tigers and opened fire at when Tigers were some 800m away. According to original War Diary of "A" Squadron, at 12:20, 3 Tigers were moving towards the Squadron and were destroyed at 12:40, 12:47 and 12:52 without any losses. After the first Tiger was destroyed at 12:40, second one returned fire but was hit and blew up in a loud explosion. Following that, third Tiger was knocked out after receiving two hits. Wittmann's Tiger was destroyed as second at 12:47 by British Sherman VC "Firefly" commanded by Sergeant Gordon (gunner - Trooper Joe Ekins) from 3rd Platoon, "A" Squadron, 33rd Armored Brigade of 1st Northamptonshire Yeomanry. British Sherman VC "Firefly" armed with 17 pounder gun was capable of penetrating Tiger's armor at range of 800m. The force of explosion blew off the turret, which landed upside down away from the hull. Wittmann did not know that British had Firefly in the area and felt confident in attacking their position with his Tigers, otherwise he would take different approach to the whole attack. After Wittmann failed to return from the battle, search for him by the members of the 12th SS Panzer Division "Hitlerjugend" and his battalion took place during the day and on the night of 8/9th.

Michael Wittmann and his crew was killed in action on August 8th of 1944, at Gaumesnil near Cintheaux and were buried in an unmarked grave. In March of 1983, the unmarked field grave of Tiger #007's crew was discovered during the construction of the road and was excavated. It was possible to identify the remains by Wittmann's dental records and Heinrich Reimers's (driver) identification tag. Wittmann and his crew was then officially buried in the German Military Cemetery of "De La Cambe" in Normandy, France. The cemetery is located on the National Road 13 (RN 13) between Isigny-sur-Mer and Bayeux.

I would have assuemed that in his situation, you'd assuem t least a platoon in the town.

Which without any likely support is still good odds and worth at least an attempt at rushing the bridge. Graebner tried much the same with less formiddable vehicles after all.

It only showed the way the soldiers regarded their enemy: as I stated before, every tank is a tiger and every gun is an 88!

Fair point :goodjob:

You could go further on that point. Jackson's observation was "2 tigers, two panzers...". Obviously Jackson could tell a tiger apart from the other vehicles, but his description of the other vehicles is not entirely accurate as they were Marders, a form of tank destroyer/SPG. Therefore it'd be more accurate to say in this case that everything big was a "Tiger" to an allied soldier, anything else was a "panzer". To be fair to him though the term "panzer" was probably used by all allied soldiers in reference to any German tracked armoured vehicle given that it meant armour.

Generally speaking not even tank crews knew the difference in a hurry. Allied battle reports from Normandy were always reporting Panthers and Tigers engaged and/or destroyed, but when the burnt out wrecks were found they'd often be Panzer IV's or similar. In certain circumstances, due to it's special armour the Panzer IV H/J resembled the Tiger enough to be mistaken for it quite easily.