What are the US Tanks in Battle of the Bulge?

Anonymous

Member since
November 2005

What are the US Tanks in Battle of the Bulge?

Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, June 22, 2003 2:07 AM

I was watching the Battle of the Bulge today, and was wondering what sort of tanks were used for the American tanks, which I guess were supposed to be Shermans? Why didn't they just use Shermans as there are plenty of them around. And since when was there a desert in Belgium?

Reply
Edit

djmodels1999

Member since
December 2002
From: United Kingdom / Belgium

Posted by djmodels1999 on Sunday, June 22, 2003 5:29 AM

Do not think Belgium could not surprise you...! Your country might be 250+ larger than Belgium, but we have 600+ kinds of beer...

But you are right, there are no desert in Belgium.

Haven't seen that movie in a long time. Probably M24 or M48, no..???

Reply

Anonymous

Member since
November 2005

Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, June 22, 2003 7:30 AM

Mostly M48 and M47's. By time the movie was made, most of the Shermans were already scraped and made into Chevys and washing machines. A waste of good equipment.

Reply
Edit

Rob Gronovius

Member since
December 2002
From: Fort Knox

Posted by Rob Gronovius on Sunday, June 22, 2003 9:11 AM

I believed they moved to the desert because that's where the tanks they wanted to show in action were (Spain?). For movie companies, it is cheaper to get some military to agree to slap some crosses on their own tanks and crew them as well as it is to try to find enough 30+ year old tanks and get folks to maintain and operate them.

BTW, there are probably thousands of micro breweries throughout the US producing beer for local consumers.

Reply

Spamicus

Member since
April 2003
From: Central Wisconsin

Posted by Spamicus on Sunday, June 22, 2003 10:52 AM

The US tanks in the movie were mostly M 24's. The "Tigers" were M 47's. There is a good size disparity there.

Steve

Reply

tigerman

Member since
March 2003
From: Rain USA, Vancouver WA

Posted by tigerman on Sunday, June 22, 2003 5:54 PM

It's been awhile since I've seen that movie. It's one of the technically worst post WW2 movies I've seen. True, there weren't many Tiger II's running around. The American tanks I'm pretty sure were M-24 Chaffees.

Eric

Reply

U-96

Member since
February 2003
From: United Kingdom

Posted by U-96 on Monday, June 23, 2003 3:43 AM

tigerman, I saw Anzio on TV at the weekend - it's also a contender *bleurgh*

On the bench: 1/35 Dragon Sturmpanzer Late Recent: Academy 1/48 Bf-109D (Nov 06) Academy 1/72 A-37 (Oct 06) Revell 1/72 Merkava III (Aug 06) Italeri 1/35 T-26 (Aug 06)

Reply

J-Hulk

Member since
February 2003
From: Tochigi, Japan

Posted by J-Hulk on Monday, June 23, 2003 4:25 AM

Yup, all the American "Shermans" were M-24s, and all the "King Tigers" were M-47s.
I think an M-7 Priest makes a cameo or two as well.

~Brian

Reply

Anonymous

Member since
November 2005

Posted by Anonymous on Monday, June 23, 2003 4:32 AM

I'm not sure if it was US tanks on a NATO base or if they were Spanish Army tanks but it was definitely filmed at a tank range in Spain. If you look close you can see the range towers and other markers.

Thankfully movie companies have learned a lesson about at least making an effort toward authenticity. But mainly the problem wasn't lack of effort of imagination, but money. The "Hollywood Blockbuster" was invented in the late 70s (Battle Of The Bulge, 1965). Until then if a movie made it's production cost back in less than six months it was considered a success. That's big incentive to keep cost down. Now-a-days producers simply have more money to throw at their movies.

Reply
Edit

Anonymous

Member since
November 2005

Posted by Anonymous on Monday, June 23, 2003 2:37 PM

Most of the tanks used in Battle of the Bulge are m24's and m47's it is a shame that they scraped almost all of the WW2 tanks they are a piece of history.

Reply
Edit

Anonymous

Member since
November 2005

Posted by Anonymous on Monday, June 23, 2003 4:05 PM

Definitely M-24's for the Shermans and M-47's for the (King) Tigers.

"Kelly's Heroes" was a little better in that respect. At least they tried to simulate the Tigers by modifying T-34s (or at least I think that's what they were) and it had some real Shermans in it. "Big Red One" was bad in that respect too, with M51 Ishermans posing as Tigers......

Reply
Edit

Anonymous

Member since
November 2005

Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 6:04 AM

My next Questions was going to be "Is it the most historicly incorrect film ever made?" I'm no expert on the battle but to me it was a rather sorry effort. I think the only thing that gets close to being as bad as the latest "Pearl Harbour" film. Not that it worries me too much I still love a good old war film even if it is totaly wrong. I think it is funny that "Kelly's Heros" is more historicaly correct and it was a fictional story LOL. I'm not only talking about the Tanks they used.

I've never heard of an M-24 before, were they any good as tanks?

And DJ I use to live in Belgium when I was a kid and I couldn't remember any deserts LOL.

Reply
Edit

Rob Gronovius

Member since
December 2002
From: Fort Knox

Posted by Rob Gronovius on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 6:23 AM

QUOTE: Originally posted by panzeriv

I've never heard of an M-24 before, were they any good as tanks?

The M-24 Chaffee (named for GEN Adna Chaffee, the Chief of the Armor Branch during WW2) was one of our first torsion bar suspension tanks. It replaced the M3/M5 Stuart series light tank. It is one of our first tanks that has the modern layout that our tanks carry to this day.

It was a decent light tank with a 75mm main gun origianlly developed for the B-25 medium bomber. It was fielded towards the end of 1944, but was used heavily during the Korean War. Its shortcomings against T-34/85s is what spurred development of the M-41 Walker Bulldog.

It was a mainstay of US Allies like the JGSDF and the ARVN used them in Vietnam. Models of the M-24 get stomped on in most old Japanese movies. It has fought the good fight versus Godzilla.

Reply

Build22

Member since
May 2003
From: Upstate NY

Posted by Build22 on Tuesday, June 24, 2003 11:36 AM

Being stomped by Godzilla is a very important role.

Jim [IMG]

Reply

J-Hulk

Member since
February 2003
From: Tochigi, Japan

Posted by J-Hulk on Wednesday, June 25, 2003 8:26 PM

Aside from the Japanese Type 61, the M-24 may be the most Godzilla-stomped tank there is.
Easy-8 Shermans got stomped a fair bit too, though.

~Brian

Reply

Anonymous

Member since
November 2005

Posted by Anonymous on Friday, June 27, 2003 4:03 AM

Ah!!! but who knows what kind of tanks were doing the Sprint Car slides coming out of the gate in "The Day The Earth Stood Still". Were they M-24s?

hmmm?

Reply
Edit

tigerman

Member since
March 2003
From: Rain USA, Vancouver WA

Posted by tigerman on Friday, June 27, 2003 7:06 PM

To panzeriv: In answering your question "Is it the most historically inaccurate film made?" You stated that you thought the newest Pearl Harbor movie was the worst. If you mean on a storyline as oppossed to combat equipment, you are right to a point. But that movie had a fictional romance that was tied into the title. The producers did a good job of trying to make the ships as realistic as possible and did use many realistic airplanes. Midway has to be one of the worst ever made to me. Constantly they used inaccurate aircraft for certain scenes , as well as ships. Certainally, the researcher could have found some newsreels of some Dauntlesses! I'm sure everyone has his own opinion. Anyone have one of their favorite inaccurate historicallly movies?

Eric

Reply

Anonymous

Member since
November 2005

Anyone have one of their favorite inaccurate histo

Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, June 28, 2003 12:08 AM

Big Red One is pretty bad from a tech standpoint. Great story but it really fell apart on the tech accuracy. I swear every German carried an MP-40. The modern headgear on the German tankers (as well as some of the German's in alpenflage camo in NA was pretty bad too. The one scene of the Germans in NA resting on the hill showed some attention to detail but that was it. Good movie if you can look past the bad equipment. Sleepy [|)]

Now actually Kelly's Heros did a pretty darn good job of mocking up a Tiger. Three of them for that matter. Rather made me wonder why they couldn't do that in Bridge too Far.

Reply
Edit

Anonymous

Member since
November 2005

Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, June 28, 2003 1:02 AM

Tigerman the planes and the CGI battleships were great don't me wrong, and the fact that the P-40s were the wrong model doesn't worry me either. But there was a sceen that had 3 rather modern looking ships in it. I've sceen the making of it and the Director said he liked the look of the ships so he kept them in it. Lots of other story things I had problems with too. Action was great but. Funny how most war movies have all the Germans using MP-40s but.

Reply
Edit

tigerman

Member since
March 2003
From: Rain USA, Vancouver WA

Posted by tigerman on Saturday, June 28, 2003 5:15 PM

Panzeriv I here you on the scene with the modern destroyers: terrible! With the high-tech special effects and models used, they could have done better. Still Midway with its higher budget couldn't outperform Tora Tora Tora for accurracy. Technically done, Tora Tora Tora has to be one of the best made. As for Germans carrying MP-40s I totally agree with you.

Eric

Reply

Keyworth

Member since
January 2003
From: NE Georgia

Posted by Keyworth on Sunday, June 29, 2003 6:22 PM

The greater part of Midway's special effects were lifted from Tora Tora Tora. Awful movie, but Pearl Harbor was far worse. batle of the Bulge was filmed in Spain, using Spanish Army Chaffees and M-47's. A few years later, Hollywood went back to Spain for Patton, using M-48's ofr both sides in one battle scene (One group in sand yellow, one in OD).. A few M-47's and Chaffees were in that one, too. - Ed

"There's no problem that can't be solved with a suitable application of high explosives"

Reply

maddafinga

Member since
March 2003
From: Broken Arrow, Oklahoma

Posted by maddafinga on Sunday, June 29, 2003 7:11 PM

For pretty inaccurate movies, how about "The Thin Red Line" ? None of the planes were right, nothing that happened in the movie actually happened, and the movie wasn't even close to the book!

bleah.

I really liked the book for what it's worth.

madda

Madda Trifles make perfection, but perfection is no trifle. -- Leonardo Da Vinci Tact is for those who lack the wit for sarcasm.--maddafinga

Reply

Anonymous

Member since
November 2005

Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, July 1, 2003 4:43 AM

Which film the origanal or the more recent version? Thin Red Line that is

Reply
Edit

r13b20

Member since
April 2014

Posted by r13b20 on Saturday, August 2, 2003 8:46 PM

bluefalcon47 the interior shot in "Big Red One" where the woman had the baby, was actually inside an M109 self-propelled howitzer! They opened the back door for the camera! (more usless info from me) ;-)

Reply

Anonymous

Member since
November 2005

Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, August 2, 2003 10:13 PM

I liked the new Thin Red Line (dint know there was an older film of it), heard about the book but didnt read it. I didnt like the planes were waaaaaaay to low to be dropping eggs on the jap emplacements, etc. Great story, exciting! I guess you need to see a few times (DVD with DTS makes it especially nice).

What about ANZIO.... someone said something about anzio being bad...why? I thought they made a pretty good attempt :)

Anyone seen Raid on Rommel? Dead [xx(]

Reply
Edit

THE MAGAZINE

CONTACT US

RECENT ARTICLES

POPULAR TOPICS

RECENT REVIEWS

POPULAR TOPICS

RECENT REVIEWS

POPULAR TOPICS

RECENT VIDEOS

POPULAR TOPICS

RECENT THREADS

CATEGORIES

NEW PRODUCTS

OUR STORE

CURRENT ISSUE

SEARCH FINESCALE.COM