Spielburg movie blunder private ryan

Discussion of all history subjects not related to World War 2.
User avatar
bf109 Emil
General
General
Posts: 1732
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:53 pm
Location: Youngstown,Alberta..CANADA
Contact:

Re: Spielburg movie blunder private ryan

Postby bf109 Emil » Sun Jun 29, 2008 6:10 pm

yah...damn Hoosier, where'd you come up with this info..i still trying to repair damage to computer when google ass site list like 100,000 site for something simple like tiger tank..if their is a URL to finding movie dialogues...I'm all ears..bless hoosier..and your liking Ales is another feather in your cap ;)
"Badges, we don't need no stinking badges"

Hoosier
Major General
Major General
Posts: 1042
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:21 pm

Re: Spielburg movie blunder private ryan

Postby Hoosier » Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 pm

emil:
Just for you mate!
;)

More from Kelly's Heroes... woof, woof, woof!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oddball: This engine's been modified by our mechanical genius here, Moriarty. Right?
Moriarty: Whatever you say, babe.
[giggles]
Oddball: These engines are the fastest in any tanks in the European Theater of Operations, forwards or backwards. You see, man, we like to feel we can get out of trouble, quicker than we got into it.
Kelly: [looking skeptical] Got any other secret weapons?
Oddball: Well, yeah, man, you see, like, all the tanks we come up against are bigger and better than ours, so all we can hope to do is, like, scare 'em away, y'know. This gun is an ordinary 76mm but we add this piece of pipe onto it, and the Krauts think, like, maybe it's a 90mm. We got our own ammunition, it's filled with paint. When we fire it, it makes pretty pictures, scares the hell outta people! And we have a loudspeaker, when we go into battle we play music, very loud. It kind of... calms us down.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tim
PS-I searched by: (kelly's heroes-movie quotes)

User avatar
bf109 Emil
General
General
Posts: 1732
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:53 pm
Location: Youngstown,Alberta..CANADA
Contact:

Re: Spielburg movie blunder private ryan

Postby bf109 Emil » Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:37 pm

Hoosier you made my day...

Wish i could find the book i had read about a young M4 crew...guess they where racing back to their lines after being fired upon and where going so fast they skidded on ice and crashed into a coloumn of their own tanks shortly afterwards...when a Captain asked what in the hell they where doing, they replyed they might have been going a little fast...The Captain said..."a little fast...that was the damn fastest he ever saw a tank travel and wasn't just a little fast"...
"Badges, we don't need no stinking badges"

User avatar
bf109 Emil
General
General
Posts: 1732
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:53 pm
Location: Youngstown,Alberta..CANADA
Contact:

Re: Spielburg movie blunder private ryan

Postby bf109 Emil » Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:42 pm

Tim (Hoosier)...the best part is where Carol O'connor is listening to Eastwood and the engineers talk on the radio, and Eastwood said they have the grave-digggers with them... and when eastwood said..we won't wait...how excited the General became..saying no,no damn don't wait..move move....have you ever heard such fighting spirit.....and lambasted his staff for not realizing the lines where now 30 miles past where they thought they where now....
"Badges, we don't need no stinking badges"

User avatar
bf109 Emil
General
General
Posts: 1732
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:53 pm
Location: Youngstown,Alberta..CANADA
Contact:

Re: Spielburg movie blunder private ryan

Postby bf109 Emil » Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:49 pm

I like in this clip how oddball asks for bridge...and reveals about being in a town behind enemy lines...and states well everyone seems rather friendly..lol...and tells the engineer he doesn't need him...he can get 60 feet of bridge almost anywherehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pMeb4ZSHh8
"Badges, we don't need no stinking badges"

User avatar
bf109 Emil
General
General
Posts: 1732
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:53 pm
Location: Youngstown,Alberta..CANADA
Contact:

Re: Spielburg movie blunder private ryan

Postby bf109 Emil » Fri Jul 04, 2008 9:20 am

How did the casualty % on Omaha compare with those of Iwo Jima taken by the marines...both where meat grinders or in respect to the fallen....to numerous
"Badges, we don't need no stinking badges"

User avatar
Grieg
Colonel
Colonel
Posts: 857
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 4:56 pm

Re: Spielburg movie blunder private ryan

Postby Grieg » Sat Jul 05, 2008 2:48 am

bf109 Emil wrote:How did the casualty % on Omaha compare with those of Iwo Jima taken by the marines...both where meat grinders or in respect to the fallen....to numerous


The casualties at Omaha Beach occurred over a much shorter time frame than at Iwo Jima where in a little over a month the Marines took 26,000 casualties.
I would compare the casualties at Omaha beach to the Marine casualties at Tarawa. Similar in time frame and in numbers.
Tarawa- about 3000 Marine casualties over 3 days.
Omaha beach- 2400 casualties over several days(most on the first day, I imagine).
Accurate casualty rates are much more difficult to calculate.
Who is John Galt?

User avatar
bf109 Emil
General
General
Posts: 1732
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:53 pm
Location: Youngstown,Alberta..CANADA
Contact:

Re: Spielburg movie blunder private ryan

Postby bf109 Emil » Sat Jul 05, 2008 10:56 pm

Grieg wrote:
bf109 Emil wrote:How did the casualty % on Omaha compare with those of Iwo Jima taken by the marines...both where meat grinders or in respect to the fallen....to numerous


The casualties at Omaha Beach occurred over a much shorter time frame than at Iwo Jima where in a little over a month the Marines took 26,000 casualties.
I would compare the casualties at Omaha beach to the Marine casualties at Tarawa. Similar in time frame and in numbers.
Tarawa- about 3000 Marine casualties over 3 days.
Omaha beach- 2400 casualties over several days(most on the first day, I imagine).
Accurate casualty rates are much more difficult to calculate.


Canada's Omaha or Tarawa was at Dieppe Casualty figures vary: according to one source, of 6,090 men, 1,027 were killed and 2,340 captured.

and an interesting tidbit was...and trying not to be morbid but informative is this...
A total of 50 US Rangers went ashore at various locations in order to gain battle experience, suffering the first American land casualties of the war in Europe. Lt. Edward V Loustalot of Louisiana is widely believed to have been the first of the three Americans to die in the fighting.
"Badges, we don't need no stinking badges"

User avatar
Grieg
Colonel
Colonel
Posts: 857
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 4:56 pm

Re: Spielburg movie blunder private ryan

Postby Grieg » Sun Jul 06, 2008 3:30 am

bf109 Emil wrote:
Grieg wrote:
bf109 Emil wrote:How did the casualty % on Omaha compare with those of Iwo Jima taken by the marines...both where meat grinders or in respect to the fallen....to numerous


The casualties at Omaha Beach occurred over a much shorter time frame than at Iwo Jima where in a little over a month the Marines took 26,000 casualties.
I would compare the casualties at Omaha beach to the Marine casualties at Tarawa. Similar in time frame and in numbers.
Tarawa- about 3000 Marine casualties over 3 days.
Omaha beach- 2400 casualties over several days(most on the first day, I imagine).
Accurate casualty rates are much more difficult to calculate.


Canada's Omaha or Tarawa was at Dieppe Casualty figures vary: according to one source, of 6,090 men, 1,027 were killed and 2,340 captured.

and an interesting tidbit was...and trying not to be morbid but informative is this...
A total of 50 US Rangers went ashore at various locations in order to gain battle experience, suffering the first American land casualties of the war in Europe. Lt. Edward V Loustalot of Louisiana is widely believed to have been the first of the three Americans to die in the fighting.


I may have to dredge up the previous thread (old forums)where I compared the battles of Tarawa and Dieppe as being similar in some ways.
Except the outcome, of course.
Who is John Galt?

User avatar
bf109 Emil
General
General
Posts: 1732
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:53 pm
Location: Youngstown,Alberta..CANADA
Contact:

Re: Spielburg movie blunder private ryan

Postby bf109 Emil » Sun Jul 06, 2008 6:46 am

At least at Tarawa the US had their shit together nad received casualties more to the credit of the Japanese then to poor American leadership...unlike Dieppe..a few examples...
The 1942 raid on Dieppe was initially planned for July and code-named Operation Rutter.
Churchill grew more supportive as the defeats in northern Africa incited a wave of press and parliamentary criticism.
Operation Rutter was approved in May 1942.
The operation was scaled down, especially the RAF bombing support as destruction of the town, and civilian casualties, was not desired, but the troops boarded their ships on 5 July
German bombers swept through and attacked the 250 strong Allied flotilla moored off the south coast of England.[3] In addition to causing the abortion of Operation Rutter, it also illustrated to the Allied command how difficult maintaining the element of surprise would be in carrying out such an invasion.


This next part bothers me..who in the hell was and why did Mountbatten basically sign the lives of 1/2 of the Canadian force away..???
Almost all concerned believed that a raid on Dieppe was now out of the question; however, though Montgomery wanted it cancelled indefinitely, Mountbatten did not. He began reorganising the raid from 11 July as Operation Jubilee. Despite not receiving Combined Chiefs of Staff authorisation, Mountbatten instructed his staff to proceed in late July. This lack of top-level go-ahead resulted in certain dislocations in the planning. For example, the failure to inform the Joint Intelligence Committee or the Inter-Service Security Board meant none of the intelligence agencies were involved, consequently the operation was mounted on information that was months out of date.

The paratroopers, which were dependent on weather and the availability of aircraft, were replaced by commandos. Flank attacks were to seize the headlands. To this was added an attack on a German HQ and an airfield further inland.[4]
"Badges, we don't need no stinking badges"

dutchman
Technical Sergeant
Technical Sergeant
Posts: 242
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 4:09 pm

Re: Spielburg movie blunder private ryan

Postby dutchman » Wed May 14, 2014 3:12 am

I'm not even sure it's a blunder? In Saving Private Ryan as they are coming a shore on the beach they show a few beach obsticles. The one that I notices (sorry don't know the name) It was a log structure with two legs coming up at an angle to support a much longer log with what appears to be a mine a few feet back from the top. I think it was facing the wrong way. If I remember right the long log was to point toward the ocean so the boat could reach the mine. If not the angle would allow the boat to "run up" on them and perhaps capsize. What they showed was the just the opposite. It might stop a boat, but unless they drop the ramp the mine wouldn't have much chance to go off??

Sadurian
Corporal
Corporal
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:28 pm

Re: Spielburg movie blunder private ryan

Postby Sadurian » Mon Sep 01, 2014 6:41 pm

Image

Image

You are correct in your knowledge that the longer strut faced the sea, but (ironically) incorrect in recalling that the film showed them the other way around! They may have them wrongly placed in some shots, but the main landing footage seems to show them correctly oriented.

Sadurian
Corporal
Corporal
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:28 pm

Re: Spielburg movie blunder private ryan

Postby Sadurian » Mon Sep 01, 2014 6:52 pm

The problem that historians (well, military ones at least) have with inaccurate war films is that the war film is how many people get their knowledge of military history. No, it shouldn't be that way, but watching an exciting war film is far more likely to happen than reading a rather dry historical tome. Even TV documentaries spice things up by 'sexing up' the facts.

Take a classic case much in vogue at the moment. When the British general public thinks of the First World War, the image is of the common soldier living for years in a front-line trench and being constantly under fire from artillery, machine-guns and snipers, led by incompetent upper-class buffoons ('lions led by donkeys') who throw waves of men at trench-lines in the hope that they'll break through.

Much of this image, however, comes from plays, novels, films and TV shows. The term 'lions led by donkeys' predated the First World War but has become associated with it by popular media. Soldiers only spent a small fraction of their time 'at the front', with units being constantly rotated from front, support, reserve and rear areas. Incompetent officers were mainly weeded out after the first day of the Battle of the Somme, following which tactics were refined to be a sophisticated 'all-arms' affair that bore a startling resemblance to the later fighting of the Second World War.

Media representations may be just entertainment, but they have a disproportional effect on public 'knowledge'.

FNG
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 384
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Spielburg movie blunder private ryan

Postby FNG » Mon Sep 01, 2014 7:50 pm

I agree with the ww1 stuff

troops spent very little time on the front trench and remarkably limited time in trenches at all. But that is the image everyone has

Again with the officers/tactics. Given that in 1914 the tactics revolved around horses, single shot weapons and small field artillery it was not that far removed from the American Civil War and certainly little of the the previous 50 years of British war gave us any solid footing (Boar War, Boxer Rebellion, Zulu War, Indian Mutiny, Crimean War) yet 3 years later we were involved in trenches, sapping on a massive scale and all that involved, armored vehicles, air power/use in every way possible, amphibious landings, combined force operations, international cooperation, siege artillery, rapid fire weapons (both personal and support), gas/chemical weapons/ submarines, radio/wire communications the list is almost endless.

It is a credit that the senior staff on all sides were able to shift their tactics so quickly

by comparison ww2 actually had remarkably little revolution.

FNG
War: God's way of teaching American's geography


Return to “General History”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest