Saving Private Ryan question

[Darth_Pugwash]

I'm sure you've all seen Saving Private Ryan, I have a question about it.

The whole premise of the movie is that Private Ryan's 3 brothers have been killed in combat, and as a result Ryan is to be sent home as the last surviving son in his family.

I know that they avoided putting family members in the same units to avoid situations where a whole group may die at once, but was the sending people home thing standard practise, or based on a true story at all? Or did the writers simply pluck it out of nowhere?

Also, if the army wanted to get one soldier (they don't know his exact location in the movie) in particular away from the front lines, for whatever reason, would they really send out a 'search party' as in the movie, would they not just use radio messages, or printed dispatches?

Thanks for any answers you guys might have.

As a side note I'd also be interested in what some of our resident buffs think of the movie, I like it alot.

 

[FriendlyFire]

I would guess so Highly decorated "heros" are often pulled from combat because there deaths would hurt moral in big way. They are then given "trainning roles" and or special duties away from combat.

During DDay +1 I would imagine the confusion would have prevent simply radioing. Remember most airborne units were scattered widly and comanders didnt have a vey clear picture of what was happening on the ground.

Would they have sent a search party ? Hardly
US did not ROLL up combat units as in the movie Hanks company is combined with another as casulaties had reduced it effective numbers Instead US would do battlefield injections / reinforcements. Not a good idea for unit cohesiveness.

Would the US attached a platoon on a special mission ? Especially one like this on Dday? Very unlikley

 

[privatehudson]

With regards to sending out a search party you have to appreciate the situation in the period following D-Day. Scattered elements of the 101st and 82nd Airborne were holding positions all over the region, frequently merely by one officer gathering up anyone he came across and going off to cause havoc or defend an objective. Chances are that most of these commands had no radios, especially when you consider that many paratroopers lost their equipment during the drop due to the use of the new leg bags. This is a little more obvious if you watch the Band of Brothers series, I believe the episode is called day of days.

With regards to whether they'd place brothers in the same unit no they wouldn't. The film cites one example of when this occurred at Guadalcanal that caused a change in policy to the effect of allowing any sole surviving brother of a large family to return home. I believe this is historically accurate.

After The Battle's excellent magazine on the film says that Ryan was loosely based on Sgt. Frederick (Fritz) Niland who had lost three brothers, one in the far east and two in Normandy. He had been dropped far inland but he managed to make his way back to Carentan around the time of its capture. At that point a Chaplain Lt. Col. Father Francis Sampson informed him of the loss of his brothers. Rather than the War Department hunting Niland down it took Simpson contacting them to get Niland sent home. Fortunately for Niland when the war ended the brother who supposedly died in the far east turned up alive and well in a POW camp.

 

[History_Buff]

Yeah, I think ever since 6 (?) Sullivan brothers died in one destroyer sinking, possibly at Guadalcanal, the US tends to separate siblings as widely as possible, IIRC.

 

[7ronin]

The law regarding the military service of "sole survivors" is somewhat convoluted and the policy varies by service. Overall though the goal is to remove them from the possibility of death in combat.

With regard to the movie, the first thirty minutes is certainly intense and is one of the best depictions of combat in the cinema.

There were five Sullivans brothers and they died when their ship, the USS Juneau (a light cruiser) was sunk following the naval battle of Guadalcanal.

 

[YNCS]

The Sullivan brothers served on the anti-aircraft cruiser USS Juneau (CL 52), not a destroyer. The Navy named two destroyers The Sullivans to honor the brothers: USS The Sullivans (DD 537) and USS The Sullivans (DDG 68).

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

I don't like that they sent a captain with about 6-8 guys. It should have been some one with a lower rank. I also dislike the last scene where the Germans attacked. It didn't feel realistic the way things went. But overall it was a good movie and I would like to see it again.

 

[Cuchullain]

Even now, not one branch of the U.S. armed services has any rule against family mambers serving in the same unit, though all strongly discourage it. All branches have been discouraging this since before the first world war. Ironically, there were several sets of twin, trplets, and even one set of quadruplets on board the Juneau before Guadlcanal, and the navy did its best to separate family members (on the Juneau, and other ships) before the battle. The Sullivans refused to be separated, and so remained together. When their ship went down, four of the brothers went down with it. The oldest, George, was one of over 100 survivors, left to fend for themselves against the elements in shark infested waters. When they were finally rescued, only 11 men were left; George Sullivan, already wounded in the attack on the Juneau, had finally succumbed to the effects of drinking salt water, went into the sea "to take a bath". According to one survivor, sharks finished him off within minutes.

I agree with FriendlyFire's assessment of the situation: the confusion and chaos immediately surrounding D-Day would have prevented simple radio communication and reassignment.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Thanks for the answers

 

[C~G]

I also dislike the last scene where the Germans attacked. It didn't feel realistic the way things went.

It was rather unrealistic in a "let's go and kill some bad nazis"-way but the scene with two american soldiers in the room first killing couple of germans through a wall and after that one of them getting hit by bullet to the throat through the same wall and other one killed slowly with bayonet is top notch.
Of course alongside with the few minutes of D-Day landing in the beginning.

 

[nonconformist]

It was rather unrealistic in a "let's go and kill some bad nazis"-way but the scene with two american soldiers in the room first killing couple of germans through a wall and after that one of them getting hit by bullet to the throat through the same wall and other one killed slowly with bayonet is top notch.
Of course alongside with the few minutes of D-Day landing in the beginning.

Well, in my opinion (which is greatly contested by privatehudson ), I think only a very foolhardy commander would send Marder tanks in, without proper infantry support.

I also feel it went a bit "okay, let's think up how many differnet ways we can kill people/tanks off".
I feel it very unlikely a tank driver would forget to put the 2 1/2 inch reinforced glass block in the view-port to stop himself being shot.

 

[privatehudson]

I've addressed the last battle scene before. People assume that because it has some SS in it they obviously could never act in such a way. The fact remains that a large percentage of the SS had little or no battle experience whereas co-ordinated infantry and tank attacks, especially in a built up area require more than basic training, they require battle experience and specific training. But people persist in assuming that it must be the part of the SS they most associate with - i.e. the elite panzer formations who could quite clearly never make that mistake. Lets not forget either that the Germans were supposed to be in a hurry to reach the bridge and appeared to lack decent unit structure (implied by so many different types of equipment that would usually come from different branches of a higher formation). All of this would imply to me a hastily formed battlegroup and therefore a very good chance of lack of co-ordination.

But of course that never happens, a decent Tiger commander would never enter an occupied town or village without proper support would he? I'm afraid that happened on and off, no less a commander than Wittmann had his Tiger disabled when he entered Villers Bocage without infantry support, and Villers Bocage wasn't just held by random infantry but armour, A/T guns and infantry. But yeah... it'd never happen in the fantasy world where all SS are Liebstandarten and all panzer commanders never make mistakes.

Nonconformist:

I believe the glass is there, it was just up. Quite why the driver would do such a thing is anyone's guess though.

 

[Birdjaguar]

With regard to the movie, the first thirty minutes is certainly intense and is one of the best depictions of combat in the cinema.

And now for a bit of movie trivia: In the first 30 minues of the movie, during all that intensity there is an anachronism (event, reference, object, etc. that could not have happened in 1944, only later). Anyone catch it?

 

[privatehudson]

Oh there's pleanty of problems there, it'd be hard to pick just one

 

[Birdjaguar]

I only noticed one, a true anachronism like the clock in the play Julius Caesar. Shakespeare put it in, but the Romans didn't have them. I don't mean things like "oh look they dressed up modern tanks to look like older ones." That would be a "costuming" problem. I'd like to see your list though.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

I also dislike the last scene where the Germans attacked. It didn't feel realistic the way things went.

I didn't like the last scene until someone on CFC pointed out that SPR is showing the soliders point of view. For an allied solider in the heat of battle every German is SS and every tank is a Tiger. Whether or not this symbolism was intended by Speilburg or not is up for debate but it would explain the ending.

 

[nonconformist]

I've addressed the last battle scene before. People assume that because it has some SS in it they obviously could never act in such a way. The fact remains that a large percentage of the SS had little or no battle experience whereas co-ordinated infantry and tank attacks, especially in a built up area require more than basic training, they require battle experience and specific training. But people persist in assuming that it must be the part of the SS they most associate with - i.e. the elite panzer formations who could quite clearly never make that mistake. Lets not forget either that the Germans were supposed to be in a hurry to reach the bridge and appeared to lack decent unit structure (implied by so many different types of equipment that would usually come from different branches of a higher formation). All of this would imply to me a hastily formed battlegroup and therefore a very good chance of lack of co-ordination.

Wasn't Panzer Lehr practically annihilated in Normandy?

 

[nonconformist]

I only noticed one, a true anachronism like the clock in the play Julius Caesar. Shakespeare put it in, but the Romans didn't have them. I don't mean things like "oh look they dressed up modern tanks to look like older ones." That would be a "costuming" problem. I'd like to see your list though.

Well, the Rangers were using the wrong type of landing craft, and the coxswains were American instead of English, for a start.

 

[privatehudson]

Wasn't Panzer Lehr practically annihilated in Normandy?

Almost all of the German divisions serving there were practically annihilated in Normandy, only cadres of each escaped. Lehr was hit especially hard though considering it was just about the strongest division going into the campaign.

Anyway I don't have time to write all the problems, look at the following
for a list of them. I've responded to a few, my name is Neil Holmes

http://www.geocities.com/savingprivateryan0/

 

[FriendlyFire]

Almost all of the German divisions serving there were practically annihilated in Normandy, only cadres of each escaped. Lehr was hit especially hard though considering it was just about the strongest division going into the campaign.

Anyway I don't have time to write all the problems, look at the following
for a list of them. I've responded to a few, my name is Neil Holmes

http://www.geocities.com/savingprivateryan0/

I would say mauld and guttered.
By the time the the germans were trapped in the pocket (cauldron) thanks to Hitlers insitance on counterattacking. Most of the SS units were already disobeying hitlers orders and had sent there logostic and support units out of the pocket early on.

Almost all the amour was lost as well as large numbers of SS killed as they had spearhead operation Luiditch (?) IIRC most had suffered 70% casualties in the battles and had to be pulled out completely to be rebuilt.

Most of the amour losses were against the british which pushed heavily against the SS. Rommel had rightly placed hes amour in the more open areas around caen and used Infantry to tie down the americans in the boches.