Saving Private Ryan

[kobayashi]

I just to come across the final bridge battle sequence during a rerun on TV and it turns out it wasn't as accurate as I first remembered it to be.

The first thing that occured to me was 'gee this is where the sounds from Nemo's Red front came from'.

The sniper guy on the tower signaled that there were two Tigers and two Panthers. In fact it was two Tigers and two Marder tank destroyers.

There was no way the Marder would have the elevation to hit the top of the tower from such a close distance. In anycase, any experienced tanker would have just fired at the base of the tower.

What kind of idiot would use open-topped tank destroyers to do street fighting?

If they had a bazooka, why did they bother with the sticky sock bombs?

The Tiger shown was using the narrow tracks for transport to the battlefield and not the wider field versions.

Is it really possible to walk up to a Tiger and fire into the drivers view port. Didn't Panzers use periscopes or vison blocks of 6 inch glass during battle and open the port only for high speed driving.

Why didn't the Tigers use their machine guns?

There is no such thing as a P-51 tank buster. Maybe they should have used a typhoon or P-47 instead.

 

[allhailIndia]

Hollywood making Historically accurate movies!!

I'd root for the Australian cricket team faster.

 

[Greadius]

Seeing how many advisors they hire for accuracy, its amazing how many mistakes they make.

Maybe the advisors made the mistakes too. Maybe its because soldiers in the field made the same mistakes, which made the movie more realistic.

Anyway, you want realism watch a documentary. Want entertainment, watch a good documentary. Want to see great explosions, action, adventure, and drama about WW2, watch SPR.

 

[Double Barrel]

Still a great movie, though.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

It is a bloody film. By Speilberg. What else expecteth thee?

As for the P-51s, they were used for ground attack

While Private Ryan's use of the term "tank-buster" is not necessarily a phrase commonly used to describe the P-51, the Mustang was used in the ground-attack role. The P-51s liquid-cooled engine was more vulnerable to damage, thus the P-47 Thunderbolt (with a simpler air-cooled design) was a more likely choice to conduct ground-attack missions. It is possible that the SPR crew were unable to obtain the use of two P-47s, so they opted for a viable alternative.

http://www.sproe.com/p-p51.htm

I'm sure that the above site will have plenty more to fulfill your inquiries to your hearts content.

 

[CurtSibling]

Simon, well said.

You made the point I was going to raise about the P51.

The Hawker Typhoon, P47D and Fw190A-5 were the killers of 1942-45 ground attack...IMHO.

The film?

Typical Speilberg demographic-pleasing propaganda...

Gimme 'Cross of Iron' anyday...

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Ja. They were not the primary jabos, but often they went low to shoot off ammunition after escort duty, as well as some ground attack.
At least Spielberg did not use F-14s because he thought they look better or something.

Any film featuring the Cadillac of the Skies is good for me, though.

 

[CurtSibling]

I too love the Mustang. But my favourite WW2 fighter must be the Ki100 Tony.

A plane that could match the P51 in dogfighting.

One of the first Ki-100 units destroyed 14 F6F Hellcats over Okinawa in their first major encounter - without loss to themselves.

A real killer.

 

[Richard III]

Actually, I think it's time for a "correction bloopers" thread; the thing that bugged me the most about accuracy and Saving Private Ryan was not the minor issue here in there in an otherwise broadly correct movie, but rather the people who nitpick its inaccuracies - and make mistakes or absurd generalizations while doing so.

And I haven't seen the script, but I always took it to be "2 Tigers, 2 Panzers" - as in 2 panzers of a generic sort. But I may have misheard.

R.III

 

[SunTzu]

the final battle, they say they see 2 tigers and 2 panzers, i've never noticed the panzers were not panzers though

 

[CurtSibling]

Is it not 2 Tigers and 2 Panthers that the recon scout spots?

In the movie:
I noticed Hummels and a Wespe I'm sure.

Also I noticed SS wearing 1944-issue Wehrmacht Steel-helms, as worn by the East German army post WW2.

 

[knowltok2]

Treads, big gun, armor, big heavy thing. Sure it isn't technically a tank, it is a tank-destroyer, but I'm not sure the average grunt made the distinction.

 

[CurtSibling]

SP howitzers are easier to destroy than a MBT.

A Hetzer is a far easier target than a Konigstiger, believe it.

 

[xghost]

I'm not really that into military movies, but if it's historically accurate, sure I'll go rent it.

 

[Cecasander]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
A Hetzer is a far easier target than a Konigstiger, believe it.

A Pkw I or a Pz 1 is an easier target too, than a Konigstiger, as most other other militairy (groundbased) equipment

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by xghost
I'm not really that into military movies, but if it's historically accurate, sure I'll go rent it.

I think that cuts out 98.9% of hollywood war movies.

 

[Quokka]

Originally posted by allhailIndia
Hollywood making Historically accurate movies!!

I'd root for the Australian cricket team faster.

It would take a Hollywood movie for you guys to beat us.

 

[Hitro]

It's a bad movie except for the first 30 minutes or so, and that's not because of some inaccuracies, but rather because of the stupid story and questionable ideology.

 

[xghost]

Originally posted by CurtSibling


I think that cuts out 98.9% of hollywood war movies.

Actually, I quite like War Movies about things that never really happened or would ever happen, but if it's something historical, then it has to be historically correct for me to watch it. Otherwise, I'll just watch Flubber again.

 

[CurtSibling]

Flubber!

Ach!
I would happily see Williams hand-cuffed to a launching V2 for that movie!