Saving Private Ryan - this has been bugging me

Yes, the M4s in Kelly's Heroes were the ones sold to them post war under Military Assistance Program. They had been rearmed with 76mm guns in the older 75mm turret.

The Tigers in Kelly's Heroes were built on T-34s too, so much better than the American tanks with a cross on the turret typical of most WW2 movies at the time. The T34s were still in service in Yugoslavia when the film was made in 1970. I believe Oddballs M4s were also borrowed from the Yugoslavian military.

To really experience the goofs in one of these war movies you would need to see it on the deck of an attack transport surrounded by the crew of sailors and the embarked marines.

Well, the movie is only a possibility at the moment. I really haven't heard much about it in a couple of weeks. If it does happen, it will be a movie about D-Day, and it will be filmed in Spain (at least, that's the last I heard on it. They are also talking to the owner about using his two LCVPs.. They were most recently featured in The Pacific.

Ya know, New Jersey isn't all that far...I'll let you know when she is up and terrorizing.

Yes, I'm aware of this. I believe that they show you a glimpse or two of this tank on the special features disc for the Band of Brothers series. They said it was the same Tiger used in SPR. They also show them doing a little construction on it. The turret is present, and functions. If its not the BoB special features disc, I apologize, but I'm almost positive that is where I saw it. Almost.

By the way Irish, I saw your pics! They are pretty cool! I'm envious that you're that close to it, real Tiger or not, the thing is neat. And you say you might be driving that for a movie soon?

Huxy

And for those who don't know, the Tiger tanks in SPR aren't built on a T-34 chassis. They are built around a T-34/85....

 

-Lasse

The man speaks truth. Most of what you will see written about the SPR Tiger is just guesses and most of the time is utter crap. Underneath the 'Tiger' Facade is a demilled, but complete T34/85 (turret and all).  There were a couple of small portions torched out, but other than that it is complete. The main gun fires using an Oxy/Acetylene mix coupled with an igniter, and the hull MG is only a barrel shroud over a piece of plumbing pipe. There is nothing on the back side of it except a spring to hold it in position. the one time in the film where you see the hull MG firing was added in post production.

There were a total of four built, two of which were operational, and two were for close-ups and, ultimately, for destruction.

If anyone has any specific questions about the vehicle, just let me know. The guy I work for owns one of them. I have been in it, on it, and have driven it. Ours is currently in Dillsburg, PA, being fitted with a new engine. The other operable example is on the West Coast.

I love IMDB, everything you need to know about any movie...most of the time. Another good site for all questions regarding Saving Private Ryan, check this out http://www.sproe.com/

Shooting Wille was the only time Upham fired his weapon, IIRC...  

If you wanna really see nit-picking, check here:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120815/goofs

thanks for clearing that one up guys

They are two different guys. However, the German that kills Miller at the end IS 'steam boat willie', he was folded into an SS unit after his release. But he is not the one that kills Melish. Actor Jeorg Stadler played steam boat willie (who kills Miller and is eventually killed by Upham), while Mac Steinmeier played the man that kills Melish. They bear similar resemblance but are not the same character.

anthony2779

Got to watch SPR again last night at work again.I have a question: Was the German Soldier who the squad took prisoner and later released "Steamboat Willie",the same one who later killed Melish in the knife fight,and was subsequently shot down by Oppum ? I thought it was but now I am not sure.

No, they looked similar, but the guy who kills Melish is SS while Willie is Heer (Army).

Been a while since I've seen SPR, but I don't think it's Steamboat Willie that kills Melish. Steamboat shoots Miller near the end, fatally wounding him, and is then shot by Upham, who won't be fooled again.

Got to watch SPR again last night at work again.I have a question: Was the German Soldier who the squad took prisoner and later released "Steamboat Willie",the same one who later killed Melish in the knife fight,and was subsequently shot down by Oppum ? I thought it was but now I am not sure.

squeakie

 

Darby Ranger were the ones that scaled the cliffs.

gary

Just to clarify a couple of inaccuracies...

-mortars are not rifled

-2nd Ranger Battalion (Rudder's), Easy and Fox Company's, stormed the cliffs at Pont du Hoc on D-Day.  The 1st, 3rd and 4th Battalions (Darby's Rangers aka the 6615 Ranger Force (Provisional)) served in Italy and were pretty well decimated in Januray of '44 at Cisterna.  The Force was officially disbanded in August of '44.  It would not be until 1948 that it was reconstituted (as the 1st Ranger Infantry Battalion).

Bgrigg

 It was, however, their line to hold. Had they been better at politics, perhaps Herr Fuhrer wouldn't have put on britches quite so large?

Absolutely!  I despise Neville Chamberlain and the French for being so submissive to Hitler.  I get pretty angry thinking about the poor Czecks being sold out.  I will admit it might be unfair for me, sitting here many years after the fact and from a country that did not have a big stake in what went on in Europe it is easy for me to say "why did the British and French not do SOMETHING at that particular time".  I can understand that the ghosts of WW1 still haunted the homes and fields of the French and English.  But frankly they should have had the measure of the man (Hitler), and they should have well known that giving up on the Czecks was not going to stop Hitler very long.  They had plenty of time to see what Hitler was made of with the Austria situation that preceeded his attempt on the Czecks.  In my opinion Chamberlin and the French failed BIG time.  So I would agree that it was indeed "their line to hold".  But you also have to acknowledge the very pervasive anti-war/neutrality elements in the U.S. that take some responsibility for holding back full U.S. participation when it was becoming quite obvious we would need to take a side, that it would involve us like it or not, and that the longer we waited the more dire the situation would become. 

The Blitz failed:

The reason the Blitz "failed" (I like to think it stopped), was Hitler decided to break his bond with Stalin and invade Russia. Something I'm sure he felt necessary, even though it was colossally stupid. Having a nasty like Stalin standing so close behind would have worried the hell out of me! The invasion of the USSR required the bulk of the Luftwaffe to move East and brought the Blitz to a complete end. Mind you the advent of radar controlled AA guns and detection stations also gave the British a new way to defend themselves. BTW, my uncle flew Hurricanes during the Battle of Britain, before transferring to the fledgling CRAF where he flew Spitfires providing bomber escort in Sicily and Italy, where my father was fighting. His view was the RAF was pretty darn lucky. The German pilots had to fly over the Channel before they could start fighting, and therefore started off with much less fuel, and were already beginning to tire from flying. The RAF was young, determined and brave, but most of all they were fresh!

Now I'm in perhaps a unique situation. I have a Blitz survivor living with me. My mother in law was bombed out of one home, and evacuated to Canada for the rest of the war. Her mother was bombed out of two more homes (those 'dumb V1 & V2 rockets), and survived until 1999. I've not just talked to survivors, I married into the family! Her recollection is that had Germany kept up the bombing, it would have broken the British. The simple fact is the respite from bombing gave the plucky Brits renewed resolve to keep the battle going.

I've often wondered what would have happened had the US maintained Army and Navy bases in Europe after WWI. They might have had a greater sense of impending doom, and perhaps wouldn't have been quite so unprepared in the Pacific and therefore stopped the Japanese from attacking in the first place.. It may have altered Hitler's plans to invade West, and he may have tried for Russia sooner.

I guess I could use a line from the Matrix movies that went along the lines of "What happened had to happen and could not have happened any other way".   There are a lot of factors that went into the Blitz being a failure (from the perspective of non English or Germans)/ Won (if you were English)/ Lost (if you were a German) .  Dowding and his rather revolutionary command system, the fledgling early warning radar systems, the failure of the Germans to realize the importance of this system too late in the game, the saving garce when the Germans changed target focus to cities, the ability of the British industrial system to crank out replacement craft at rates faster than pilots could be trained to fly them, the Germans pulling a large number of their bomber force (the Stukas) from use over Britain, the sheer bravery of the British (and of course Polish, Czeck, Canadian and American's in RAF service) fighter pilots, and of course your mentioned fact that Hitler was stretching himself way to far.  I guess the round about point I am trying to make is that in this war there were so many factors that caused the outcome.  Could a change in just one of those minor details have been the straw that breaks the camels back?  Hypothetically yes.  But in the end I just deep down feel that the war would still have been won by the Allies.

Brian

My point here is that you wouldn't use a P51D as a low level ground attack plane. You'd use a P51A or even a P40 or P47. The P51A had equale if not slightly better performance at very low levels that the "D" model.

Well, you'd be wrong if you're talking about ground attacks...  The P-51A vs the D at low level, sure, the A would have been on about equal footing with a Me-109, and the D would be out-turned in a dogfight, but since we're talking about ground attack, they're both about the same, and have the exact same vulnerability, which is the cooling system (Goes for the A-36 as well)... However, Dad flew plenty of low-level attacks as a Mustang driver... They were routinely asssigned to hit targets of oppourtunity after they'd let the bombers go, and I also know that he flew a number of sorties in the Normandy area and they shot up a number of German convoys and airfields...

Another thing, at least as near as I can tell, the P-51A wasn't even in 8th AF service by Jun 44... All the US Mustang units were equipped with B/C/Ds.  So, it's quite plausible that a Mustang driver could have "saved the day" at Ramell...  Could it destroy a Tiger? Probably, provided that the pilot hit the top of the engine compartment, 6 .50 cals could do a damn-damn in that area...  However, I think  it'd only result in a mobility kill unless it started an engine fire...

Brian, only two quibbles...

Hold the line:

America was told, in no uncertain terms, to stay out of Europe before WWI, and after WWI, but oddly not DURING WWI, and then they were told "what took you so long?". A question they were asked during WWII.

I've heard this for most of my life. The Americans took that long as they had millions of soldiers to train, thousands of tanks, aircraft and ships to build, and two very large oceans to cross before they could attend. So the Europeans and Britain had to hold the line. It was, however, their line to hold. Had they been better at politics, perhaps Herr Fuhrer wouldn't have put on britches quite so large?

The Blitz failed:

The reason the Blitz "failed" (I like to think it stopped), was Hitler decided to break his bond with Stalin and invade Russia. Something I'm sure he felt necessary, even though it was colossally stupid. Having a nasty like Stalin standing so close behind would have worried the hell out of me! The invasion of the USSR required the bulk of the Luftwaffe to move East and brought the Blitz to a complete end. Mind you the advent of radar controlled AA guns and detection stations also gave the British a new way to defend themselves. BTW, my uncle flew Hurricanes during the Battle of Britain, before transferring to the fledgling CRAF where he flew Spitfires providing bomber escort in Sicily and Italy, where my father was fighting. His view was the RAF was pretty darn lucky. The German pilots had to fly over the Channel before they could start fighting, and therefore started off with much less fuel, and were already beginning to tire from flying. The RAF was young, determined and brave, but most of all they were fresh!

Now I'm in perhaps a unique situation. I have a Blitz survivor living with me. My mother in law was bombed out of one home, and evacuated to Canada for the rest of the war. Her mother was bombed out of two more homes (those 'dumb V1 & V2 rockets), and survived until 1999. I've not just talked to survivors, I married into the family! Her recollection is that had Germany kept up the bombing, it would have broken the British. The simple fact is the respite from bombing gave the plucky Brits renewed resolve to keep the battle going.

I've often wondered what would have happened had the US maintained Army and Navy bases in Europe after WWI. They might have had a greater sense of impending doom, and perhaps wouldn't have been quite so unprepared in the Pacific and therefore stopped the Japanese from attacking in the first place.. It may have altered Hitler's plans to invade West, and he may have tried for Russia sooner.

Well said Brian, I have to agree on both counts.

stikpusher

Yup, just like Kelly's Heroes did. But it is a  LOT beter than 40 years ago for most major war movies when all you got were M-47s and M48s painted gray with a German cross and a double baffle muzzle brake added sometimes.

My favorite is "The Big Red One", which features Israeli Ishermans w/ balkenkreuz painted on the front slope of the armor. It's just so... ironic.

Bgrigg

As a Canadian, I have always been amused by the necessity of American movie makers to over emphasize American involvement. If you were to believe Hollywood, one would think the US won the war single handed. But I don't believe Hollywood, and I know full well that it took a huge amount of effort by ALL the Allies in order to win the war.

I can not emphasize how much I agree with this!  I will admit that, even though I have never come even close to visiting, I hold a sort of admiration for Australia (as evidenced my what I explain in my Carro Armato thread).  And to a not quite, but very close extent, I have held the British and her commmonwealth colonies in high regards.  Despite the speed bumps we had early in this countries history with the British and her commonwealths they have proven to be nothing but upstanding allies.  And in WW2 we look to more than just the English and her colonies, we also had the Czechs, Polish and displace free French who added their mark to the war.  I for one like to think I am not an egotistical American.  I will always give the British, Australians, Kiwis, Indians, Polish, Czecks (who get even more respect out of me for going on to fight besides the nation...Great Britain...who sold her out to the Nazis), Free French, Canadians, Russians (who, love or hate the fact, really did take a HUGE brunt of the war effort on her shoulders while the rest of the Allies got their acts together) and Phillipinos.  I can't remember where I read it, but in one book an author described the situation pretty well when he said, to paraphrase, that America used to fight her wars by remaining as close to non beligerance as possible without actually sending troops and relied on the other European nationalities to hold the line while they got their acts together.

I do know that England could not and would not have withstood another year of war without the Yanks, no matter how much they like to complain that the US soldier was "over paid, over sexed and over here".

This, however, I am not quite totally convinced of.  Let's face it, Hitlers ambitions for taking the British/Scottish/Welsh isles was half hearted at most.  He would have considered the Blitz a success if it brought nothing more than an agreement with the British to stay out of his greater Europe ambitions.  I think this is somewhat evident by the fact that after the failure of the Blitz the most he ever managed to do was send over a number of "dumb" terror weapons in the V1 and V2.  Now, I will grant you that Hitlers word was NEVER a solid bond...he proved often that hewould say anything (and sometimes mean it!) only to change his mind when it suited him.  But when the Blitz failed I think that really, as the British like to say, took the Mickey out of his greater ambitions for the island country.  I think that eventually, even if the US did not enter the war, the battle for the Atlantic would still have been won (albeit at a more protracted date), but the only sticking point being could the British have survived through a lack of food and other provisions (another thing I will grant the Brits....they sure do know how to take hardship prety well).  I think they could have.  But even still it would have come down to whether Hitler was still interested in taking the Isles, a prospect that I honestly don't think I could forsee having ever happened.

Brian

As a Canadian, I have always been amused by the necessity of American movie makers to over emphasize American involvement. If you were to believe Hollywood, one would think the US won the war single handed. But I don't believe Hollywood, and I know full well that it took a huge amount of effort by ALL the Allies in order to win the war. I also know that without massive US involvement, the world would be a radically different place than it is now. Whether we would be speaking German or Russian instead is a question I am glad to not know the answer to!

I do know that England could not and would not have withstood another year of war without the Yanks, no matter how much they like to complain that the US soldier was "over paid, over sexed and over here".

And I don't expect Americans to promote the other countries. They can make their own movies if they want that. At least the aircraft at the end wasn't Tom Cruise in an F-14!

Bgrigg, I would agree with you about the P-51. There were many complaints about the movie neglecting to emphasize the assistance and the involvement of our allies in the Normandy invasion, which I think are irrelevant. However, if the movie is to cater to American audiences then it certainly would have obliged them to use an icon such as the Mustang. Upon seeing, say, a Typhoon emasculating a Tiger, unsavvy American audiences may have just shrugged their shoulders. You'd have to wonder if a grunt like Pvt. Ryan would have even known what a Typhoon was. Further, I'm sure the idea of British Typhoons coming to the rescue of embattled US troops wouldn't have been so flavorful or as dramatic as how they depict American soldiers releiving Ramelle under the cover of the glorious Mustang. Of course, this is all just speculation on my part...I'm still a firm believer that Capt. Miller disabled the Tiger with several well placed shots from his side arm.  

Heh, heh, the real reason the battle of Ramelle was staged in England, was that the village of Ramelle is completely fictional, as are the characters in the movie.

I think the real reason a P-51 was used, is that it is the most recognizable American WWII fighter plane.

I think we can all agree that the P-51 wasn't the optimum choice for such a role depicted in the film. I suppose in some ways we can't fault Spielburg and Co. for such things. The battle at Ramelle was staged some where in England.  That being said, I'm guessing it would have been simpler and much less expensive to use resources readlily available to them from England. At the time, perhaps there were no airworthy P-47's or other such 'tank busters' in the UK (that they would be willing to use). And I doubt if they would have spent the time and money flying or transporting P-47's from the States. We could then make the argument that they should have simply CG'ed the planes into the film, thereby making it more accurate. However, I could just hear the purists complaining that they used computer graphics rather than using the actual aircraft. Maybe its a no win situation.

I'd still like to know if 6 to 8 .50's would do any damage to German armor of the day. I've heard talk that P-47 pilots used to skip rounds off the road and into the less-armored under belly of tanks and thus destroy them. That came from the History channel.

Hans von Hammer

But in reallity it would probably have been an A20 or a B26 Marauder out the busting tanks. Perhaps a Havoc with invasion stripes (I don't remember seeing them on the Mustangs by the way)

A-20s and B-26s aren't tankbusters in any sense of the word... Even though the A-20 had the Attack designator, it was used in the medium bomber roll in the ETO & MTO, same as the B-25 & B-26...   The A-20s had a major roll in attacking targets like bridges, railroad & troop marshalling areas, and airfields, but they didn't do any type of CAS missions like tank-plinking or hitting pillbox positions and such...

Invasion stripes were applied to all tactical aircraft types used during Overlord, or aircraft used in a tactical roll (C-47s, gliders, L-birds)...  Aircraft like the B-17, B-24, and Lancaster were strategic bombers, hence no stripes..  

I've read several times that the two hardest things on German armor were Hawker Typhoons and "A" series bombers (probably all medium bombers too). The vast majority of German armor that was knocked out was by aircraft. A group of Havocs or Invaders were often used as a wolf pack looking for targets of oppertunity just like they did with the P47 (what a work horse). Patton even went so far as to issue an order saying that his men were to by pass Panther Tanks and the likes and leave them for the bombers. Now with the Normandy invasion alone; the vast amount of German armor knocked out was from carpet bombing (what planes were used is a mute point). My point here is that you wouldn't use a P51D as a low level ground attack plane. You'd use a P51A or even a P40 or P47. The P51A had equale if not slightly better performance at very low levels that the "D" model. But the Typhoon would have been the weapon of choice in a tank busting role; not a Mustang.

gary

But in reallity it would probably have been an A20 or a B26 Marauder out the busting tanks. Perhaps a Havoc with invasion stripes (I don't remember seeing them on the Mustangs by the way)

A-20s and B-26s aren't tankbusters in any sense of the word... Even though the A-20 had the Attack designator, it was used in the medium bomber roll in the ETO & MTO, same as the B-25 & B-26...   The A-20s had a major roll in attacking targets like bridges, railroad & troop marshalling areas, and airfields, but they didn't do any type of CAS missions like tank-plinking or hitting pillbox positions and such...

Invasion stripes were applied to all tactical aircraft types used during Overlord, or aircraft used in a tactical roll (C-47s, gliders, L-birds)...  Aircraft like the B-17, B-24, and Lancaster were strategic bombers, hence no stripes..  

Here are a few shots of Rangers at Pt DuHoc. In them you can see the large cargo packets on the pant leg in the hip area. In the middle photo if you look closely you will see a wounded British Commando who accompanied the Ranger Force and a 101st Paratrooper who landed at the base of the cliffs the during the night drop and joined the Ranger Assault.

Gary, I will respectfully disagree on Darby's Rangers. Col. Darby was stateside at the time of the Normandy landings. He was not associated with that Ranger Force.Col Rudder commanded the Overlord Ranger Force of the 2nd and 5th Ranger Battalions. They wore the HBT fatigues with M41 filed jackets for the landings. The HBT fatigues had two large chest cargo pockets on the shirt and two large hip/thigh cargo pockets on the pants. The M41 Field Jackets were a Khaki Olive material with two slash pockets on the front. There are a few photos around on the net of the Ranger Force at Pt Du Hoc which I will try to find and post.

As far as invasion stripes go, they were applied to all Allied aircraft associated with the landings except for certain four engine types (B-17, B-24, Lancaster) Everything else that was to fly in the area of the beachheads had them applied.

bbrowniii

 

 

 

Well, we don't know that.  Perhaps the -51 had been carrying a rocket and used its last one on the Tiger....

Well, I would agree with you there, except for the lack of hard points to attach the ordnance. I mean, all of this is speculation, only a movie, hence some suspension of disbelief is in order. I mean, there is no sound in the vacuum of space but I still love Star Wars...