How good were 'classic' movies?

RandomViewer

Bad day at Black Rock
Kiss me deadly
Cat on a hot tin roof
Long hot summer
The thing from another world
3.10 to Yuma

Joe_ Public

Homelander wrote: »

Fury was exceptionally good until the last 15 minutes where it just lost me completely, I'm shocked they went to such great lengths to make it realistic elsewhere, and just devolved into brainless nonsense at the end.

Just a hollywood ending, i'd say anyway. It's as ridiculous as the ending of We Were Soldiers or Hacksaw Ridge etc. I think Brad Pitt is pretty good in Fury, though I'm not fully convinced his character is all that realistic, or some of the crew too. Not something i ever expect very often from war films anyway, when it comes to character, whatever about technical detail.

Tony EH

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The issue for me with SPR is that if you take those admittedly compelling battle scenes out, there's not much left to the film. Very contrived, over wrought plot imo. A triumph of form over content which is also how I would regard Dunkirk.

beauf wrote: »

Fury does much the same for tank warfare. Though it loses its way a bit at the end, and is generally over done.

'Saving Private Ryan', 'Fury' and 'Dunkirk' all lose points because they stray into silly territory and unnecessarily as well. But out of the three of them 'Dunkirk' is probably the most realistic attempt.

But why Nolan had to turn Tom Hardy into a GOAT pilot, I don't know. His antics takes me out of the picture completely. Plus, how the German pilots behave in the movie is ridiculous and they are all flying way too low. it's 1500 feet at one stage IIRC.

That's suicide.

Apart from that, it was very well done.

The worst offender, though, is 'Fury'. That was just stupid. The Hollywood heroics during the fight with the Tiger and especially at the end were laughable.

Tony EH

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I think Brad Pitt is pretty good in Fury, though I'm not fully convinced his character is all that realistic

Brad Pitt was 50 in 'Fury'. He's at least 20 years too old to be anywhere near a tank in WWII.

Tom Hanks was in his 40's when he played a Captain in 'Saving Private Ryan'. Too old as well.

But, this has always been an issue with war films. Especially American ones.

RandomViewer

Tony EH wrote: »

'Saving Private Ryan', 'Fury' and 'Dunkirk' all lose points because they stray into silly territory and unnecessarily as well. But out of the three of them 'Dunkirk' is probably the most realistic attempt.

But why Nolan had to turn Tom Hardy into a GOAT pilot, I don't know. His antics takes me out of the picture completely. Plus, how the German pilots behave in the movie is ridiculous and they are all flying way too low. it's 1500 feet at one stage IIRC.

That's suicide.

Apart from that, it was very well done.

The worst offender, though, is 'Fury'. That was just stupid. The Hollywood heroics during the fight with the Tiger and especially at the end were laughable.

If theyd abandoned the tank and hid in the bushes till the Germans passed would have been much more believable

pixelburp

Ah, the armchair historians. Wonder why that is that WW2 seems to attract more criticism over historical "inaccuracies" than other wars or genres.

I used to be like you, grinding my teeth at the 1960s tanks used in Patton or Bridge Too Far. Then I realised it didn't really matter, that it was getting in the way of what the film was really about.

Tony EH

RandomViewer wrote: »

If theyd abandoned the tank and hid in the bushes till the Germans passed would have been much more believable

Perhaps.

But all of them advancing on a hidden Tiger in a nice neat formation, with all the commanders standing in their cuppolas was absurd. How any history consultant would stand over that, I don't know.

Shermans usually wouldn't take on a frontal assault on a Tiger, even the 76mm armed ones or the British Fireflies. They would have used their speed and scattered, trying to flank and get behind him. They do eventually try this in the film, but not after most of them have been picked off.

It's a case of the director looking for action rather than realism.

But, if he'd stuck to what would have, more than likely, happened historically, the scene would have been no less exciting. As it is, it just comes off as silly.

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

Ah, the armchair historians. Wonder why that is that WW2 seems to attract more criticism over historical "inaccuracies" than other wars or genres.

I used to be like you, grinding my teeth at the 1960s tanks used in Patton or Bridge Too Far. Then I realised it didn't really matter, that it was getting in the way of what the film was really about.

History is my first love. Can't help but grind my teeth when simple things are rendered stupid. It's usually completely unnecessary too.

But, yeh, I am the worst person to watch a war film with.

'A bridge too Far' at least tries with the M4's. But since there were no Tiger II's knocking around, they had to opt for a modern tank instead.

'Patton' was just yeah, whatever was lying around...:pac:

beauf

Tony EH wrote: »

...
The worst offender, though, is 'Fury'. That was just stupid. The Hollywood heroics during the fight with the Tiger and especially at the end were laughable.

What good about fury is the sound effects, and the visceral nature of living and fighting in a tank. The storyline and tactics is mostly garbage. For some reason the Hurt Locker annoyed me more for this. Perhaps because of the attention it got. Then again they are intended to be entertainment, not a documentary.

beauf

Tony EH wrote: »

Perhaps.

But all of them advancing on a hidden Tiger in a nice neat formation, with all the commanders standing in their cuppolas was absurd. How any history consultant would stand over that, I don't know.

Shermans usually wouldn't take on a frontal assault on a Tiger, even the 76mm armed ones or the British Fireflies. They would have used their speed and scattered, trying to flank and get behind him. They do eventually try this in the film, but not after most of them have been picked off.

It's a case of the director looking for action rather than realism.

But, if he'd stuck to what would have, more than likely, happened historically, the scene would have been no less exciting. As it is, it just comes off as silly.

Tanks didn't fire on the move either, not if they expected to hit anything. Like wise, the Tiger, made no sense that it would move.

Tony EH

beauf wrote: »

What good about fury is the sound effects, and the visceral nature of living and fighting in a tank. The storyline and tactics is mostly garbage. For some reason the Hurt Locker annoyed me more for this. Perhaps because of the attention it got. Then again they are intended to be entertainment, not a documentary.

Getting basic tactics correct shouldn't be difficult, though, and in the end it's no less exciting.

Can't remember 'The Hurt Locker'. Saw it once, wasn't pushed.

Tony EH

beauf wrote: »

Tanks didn't fire on the move either, not if they expected to hit anything.

Very true. No gyroscopic stabilisers in WWII. :pac:

pixelburp

It's not even a question of "Entertainment"; the entirity of cinema is artifice. Unless something is directed by Mike Leigh or of his ilk, then everything onscreen is intentionally drawn from a heightened sense of reality. The simple fundamental of light(ing) isn't even the same within cinema, while something as superficial as where or how a character stands can be significant. It's not without reason they're called "Moving pictures", so in that sense waxing critical about historical accuracy can miss the point. Unless it's something truly idiotic like - I dunno - muskets in Roman times.

Tony EH wrote: »

History is my first love. Can't help but grind my teeth when simple things are rendered stupid. It's usually completely unnecessary too.

But, yeh, I am the worst person to watch a war film with.

'A bridge too Far' at least tries with the M4's. But since there were no Tiger II's knocking around, they had to opt for a modern tank instead.

'Patton' was just yeah, whatever was lying around...:pac:

Indeed Patton was that, but cribbing about its tanks would be to miss what is, in fact, a great movie about a borderline unhinged Warrior Poet; someone almost born out of his time.

Joe_ Public

Tony EH wrote: »

Brad Pitt was 50 in 'Fury'. He's at least 20 years too old to be anywhere near a tank in WWII.

Tom Hanks was in his 40's when he played a Captain in 'Saving Private Ryan'. Too old as well.

But, this has always been an issue with war films. Especially American ones.

That's not even my biggest issue tbh. Pitts character is obviously built up as this larger than life character who manages to keep almost his entire crew alive through the most savage of battles. I mean, i could be wrong but did such an individual ever really exist? His crew, we are led to believe, fought through Africa, Italy, Normandy, Holland and into Germany and, from memory, just the one casualty i think. Tank crews from what ive read, suffered a very high casualty rate so i just struggle to get my head around all that.

mikhail

I expect there were a few. Probably more lucky than good, but still.

beauf

pixelburp wrote: »

It's not even a question of "Entertainment"; the entirity of cinema is artifice. Unless something is directed by Mike Leigh or of his ilk, then everything onscreen is intentionally drawn from a heightened sense of reality. The simple fundamental of light(ing) isn't even the same within cinema, while something as superficial as where or how a character stands can be significant. It's not without reason they're called "Moving pictures", so in that sense waxing critical about historical accuracy can miss the point. Unless it's something truly idiotic like - I dunno - muskets in Roman times.

Indeed Patton was that, but cribbing about its tanks would be to miss what is, in fact, a great movie about a borderline unhinged Warrior Poet; someone almost born out of his time.

I take your point but in Fury its like David vs Goliath but both being the same size and both armed with swords.

Joe_ Public

Best tank film ive seen was on the bbc for the 1916 centenary and its Our World War series. Nothing too elaborate about it, but a good story well told.

beauf

Joe_ Public wrote: »

That's not even my biggest issue tbh. Pitts character is obviously built up as this larger than life character who manages to keep almost his entire crew alive through the most savage of battles. I mean, i could be wrong but did such an individual ever really exist? His crew, we are led to believe, fought through Africa, Italy, Normandy, Holland and into Germany and, from memory, just the one casualty i think. Tank crews from what ive read, suffered a very high casualty rate so i just struggle to get my head around all that.

I read this one recently.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tank-Commander-France-Germany-Memoirs-ebook/dp/B00GS8A3UA

Theres also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Luck.

I think though with movies. They are often flawed. You have read between the lines and get the best out of it.

beauf

Someone mentioned Barry Lyndon always though that was great. But I could see why it wouldn't appeal to everyone.

What Zulu and Zulu dawn the other day.

Third man, and Cruel Sea are some other ones I like.

Hannibal_Smith

Conall Cernach wrote: »

The Searchers is my own favourite western it's beautifully shot with strong performances from everyone and explores themes of racism, obsession, family, loneliness etc.

The Searchers is a superb movie. I could watch it a million times over and always get choked at the ending.

I love John Wayne movies. I found the Big Trail on YouTube only a couple of weeks ago, black and white from 1930. Its well worth a watch, such a great story and so well done. There's a snow scene that would chill your bones in July

Joe_ Public

beauf wrote: »

I read this one recently.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tank-Commander-France-Germany-Memoirs-ebook/dp/B00GS8A3UA

Theres also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Luck.

I think though with movies. They are often flawed. You have read between the lines and get the best out of it.

I recall a piece by Anthony Become a while back about how he couldn't watch any "based on true story" war films because they invariably took too many liberties and he didn't think it was ever possible to capture the true horror or reality of war anyway. I can see where he as a professional historian was coming from, but if everybody had that attitude, the whole genre would be instinct.

Was Von Luck the guy who shot up all those tanks in Villers Bocage? I've read a bit about that guy. Is he the same guy also featured in The Battle of the Bulge?

Not suggesting there weren't any great tank war heroes, obviously there were loads. Just the idea of a whole tank crew surviving the course of the war with just one casualty. Not impossible but i just find it a stretch personally.

beauf

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I recall a piece by Anthony Become a while back about how he couldn't watch any "based on true story" war films because they invariably took too many liberties and he didn't think it was ever possible to capture the true horror or reality of war anyway. I can see where he as a professional historian was coming from, but if everybody had that attitude, the whole genre would be instinct.

Was Von Luck the guy who shot up all those tanks in Villers Bocage? I've read a bit about that guy. Is he the same guy also featured in The Battle of the Bulge?

Not suggesting there weren't any great tank war heroes, obviously there were loads. Just the idea of a whole tank crew surviving the course of the war with just one casualty. Not impossible but i just find it a stretch personally.

Anthony Beevor re: Battle of Stalingrad and about Enemy at the gates.

Bocage - No that was Wittmann.
Battle of the Bulge - might be Sepp Dietrich.

beauf

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

The Searchers is a superb movie. I could watch it a million times over and always get choked at the ending.

I love John Wayne movies. I found the Big Trail on YouTube only a couple of weeks ago, black and white from 1930. Its well worth a watch, such a great story and so well done. There's a snow scene that would chill your bones in July

Searchers is a darker movie when you watch it now, that I didn't realize at the time. But great.

Joe_ Public

beauf wrote: »

Anthony Beevor re: Battle of Stalingrad and about Enemy at the gates.

Bocage - No that was Wittmann.
Battle of the Bulge - might be Sepp Dietrich.

Ah, yeah Wittmann, thanks! Just checked BofB and the character is called Hessler, not sure even real, maybe based on Dietrich or someone else.

Also, on a cursory check, i note tank casualties in ww2 seem significantly lower than i actually assumed so i am quite open to correction on what i was saying. Will have to read up on it further!

johnny_ultimate

Stubborn or pedantic historic accuracy rarely a great film makes. I'd go as far as saying it's a tiny part of what makes a good war film a good war film.

Many of the truly great war films aren't American or British. There are obvious Anglophone ones (Apocalypse Now, Thin Red Line and the like) but a lot of them, especially from the 40s-60s, get wrapped up in the victors' perspective - simplistic morality, narrow perspective and (often) uncritical patriotism above all else. Not surprising that it took until Vietnam for a lot of the really biting American war films to emerge, when you couldn't really hide behind a patriotic message as easily.

A lot of international filmmakers I think started making far more mature and complex efforts about the nature of war. I think the Human Condition remains the crowning achievement (in my experience) of World War 2 cinema. Just captures the messiness, the ugliness, the horror of the lived experience of wartime with such startling, extended clarity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS8YraEXC9c

A lot of the great WW2 cinema also came from France (and the great WW1 film through La Grande Illusion, too - a candidate for the greatest war film of them all). Only recently got around to Army of Shadows, and what a triumph it is. Melville's terse, clinical film just beautifully captures the messiness of resistance fighting - from the moral challenges to the desperate efforts to stay hidden.

And in terms of sheer realism, The Battle of Algiers is perhaps the definitive word on the subject - conflict captured in remarkable, raw clarity.

jelem

classic is relating to past and mind turning films that leave an imprint
on the mind.
original "flight of phoenix" i have not met anyone whom had watch it
and was not at edge when "they starting the prop.",
the remake just was to "modern made" and looked like fake antique
church glass.
the same for "war of the worlds" whilst modern day graphics made more
of the scenes,. the "cold" feeling of "at that time\date level of technology"
makes the original so near realism.
i have found the need to remind others the likes of
"in those days they not have mobiles or what we have today and you need
to think Sparse as - they had nothing what we take for granted".
thats just two films and from this part of europes point of view with
religion\politics. when you see a number of german\french\italian along with
korean and chinese etc films that are noted as classic it would be my opinion
the age and realism of the time is what sets them apart.
i would watch star trek etc and in 100 years they may be classed as classic
but would not hold a candle against pre 1960 films ok ok (1965 "flight of phoenix").
1970s brought a different film type along with genres likes of numero deux which
many would claim now a classic. -

beauf

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Stubborn or pedantic historic accuracy rarely a great film makes. I'd go as far as saying it's a tiny part of what makes a good war film a good war film.....

They don't all have the same objective.

One might be to explore the human condition under adversity.
Some tell the story of a specific historic event.
Some tell the story of some technology or such.
Some are a combination of all the above.

If you got the detail in a Dambusters mostly wrong it would be kinda pointless.

beauf

Of course you then have something like Bridge on the River Kwai which might a classic, but is mostly fiction.

Homelander

There's also a major difference between pedantic historical criticism/acceptable license and blatant bad film-making.

I mean, take Fury. Slightly illogical, or tactically inaccurate portrayals of tank warfare possibly, but broadly speaking perfectly acceptable and certainly thrilling film-making.

It devolving in the end to German soldiers existing purely as braindead cannon fodder to be completely, illogically and absurdly mown down in their mindless droves in almost cartoon-like fashion by the American heroes.....not so much.

beauf

Homelander wrote: »

There's also a major difference between pedantic historical criticism/acceptable license and blatant bad film-making.

I mean, take Fury. Slightly illogical, or tactically inaccurate portrayals of tank warfare possibly, but broadly speaking perfectly acceptable and certainly thrilling film-making.

It devolving in the end to German soldiers existing purely as braindead cannon fodder to be completely, illogically and absurdly mown down in their mindless droves in almost cartoon-like fashion by the American heroes.....not so much.

If you accept the first inaccuracy, I'm not sure why the second one is a problem. "Both thrilling".

Its like David and Goliath. Its a bit like David not using his sling, and beating Goliath hand to hand. Thrilling and they got the essentials right.

Homelander

Because what you're talking about it taking artistic license with the details whilst preserving the core of the fable - the underdog goes up against the more powerful foe and triumphs against the odds.

I mean, that's identical to the Tiger v Sherman scene in Fury - it may not have factually accurate tactics, but the fact that the Tiger was a monster that was markedly superior to it's common Allied counterpart is completely preserved.

You said it yourself - the essentials are correct.

Whereas the end scene is more like something from Rambo, or a 60's Cowboys v Indians production, that is completely narratively and tonally jarring from the rest of the film - the enemy only exists to be mown down in waves like braindead zombies.

It's a nonsensical scene devoid of any sense of realism.

I mean, if at the end of Saving Private Ryan, Captain Miller picked up a BAR and drove back 50 German's from the bridge on his own....you could argue that would be 'thrilling', but certainly a random, unexpected departure from the rest of the film and unlikely something to be praised.

To me, that's exactly what the end scene in Fury was like.

silverharp

Tony EH wrote: »

History is my first love. Can't help but grind my teeth when simple things are rendered stupid. It's usually completely unnecessary too.

But, yeh, I am the worst person to watch a war film with.

'A bridge too Far' at least tries with the M4's. But since there were no Tiger II's knocking around, they had to opt for a modern tank instead.

'Patton' was just yeah, whatever was lying around...:pac:

this one will make your brain hurt, planes not tanks this time, you will laugh and cry in equal measure. it stretches the" whatever was lying around" to the nth, spin to 47:34 mark its from a cheap movie called Suicide Commandos

https://youtu.be/EQmtDHeZe24

beauf

The Tiger scene is the same. It's like a sniper leaving his hidden position, ripping off his camo gear down to his neon jocks throwing away his sniper rifle, running into an open field against 5 opponents to have a knife fight in the open and his knife bouncing off the bare skin of his adversaries multiple times.

I'm saying it makes no sense. You're saying it works because those snipers are tough mother's.

If you think the bit at the end was crazy look at how this guy won his medal of honor

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audie_Murphy

.

ballyargus

beauf wrote:

Someone mentioned Barry Lyndon always though that was great. But I could see why it wouldn't appeal to everyone.

I class Barry Lyndon as a modern film. It was made in the mid 70s. Film has been around since the 19th century

beauf

ballyargus wrote: »

I class Barry Lyndon as a modern film. It was made in the mid 70s. Film has been around since the 19th century

Are some modern films not classics?

Homelander

beauf wrote: »

The Tiger scene is the same. It's like a sniper leaving his hidden position, ripping off his camo gear down to his neon jocks throwing away his sniper rifle, running into an open field against 5 opponents to have a knife fight in the open and his knife bouncing off the bare skin of his adversaries multiple times.

I'm saying it makes no sense. You're saying it works because those snipers are tough mother's.

If you think the bit at the end was crazy look at how this guy won his medal of honor

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audie_Murphy

.

No, I said while the tactics are silly, the core reality gets across - the Tiger tank is vastly superior to the Sherman.

It's not just the Tiger is hard done by, because the Sherman's wouldn't charge head on into a Tiger either, so your analogy is just plain daft.

Also, what Audie Murphy did isn't the same as what was portrayed in Fury.

He played a vital role in stopping an infantry assault and forced tanks to pull back because their infantry were stalling.

Obviously, he was incredibly brave, put his life at risk for literally an hour - not trying to take away from that, he more than earned his medal.

But he wasn't solely on his own, repelling dozens of infantry and tanks with a .50cal as that Wiki article can be interpreted to read.

He was in a forward position on his own, but was supported by others - again, not taking away from him, but for clarity's sake.

Whereas in Fury, an immobilized tank is a) alone and b) surrounded by Panzergrenadiers armed with anti-tank weaponry.

They wouldn't have survived 30 seconds in reality.

beauf

Homelander wrote: »

No, I said while the tactics are silly, the core reality gets across - the Tiger tank is vastly superior to the Sherman.

...

Obviously not, since they basically did the charge of the light brigade and won.

If that worked they (Fury) are obviously pretty much invulnerable and bullseye accurate especially while moving. So in that context the end scene makes perfect sense.

https://youtu.be/QjRVW_hxfvo

Should really use spoilers...

Homelander

But...they didn't exactly 'win'? I can't remember the specifics but I'm fairly sure it's 1 v 4 and the Tiger kills 3 of them effortlessly, while shells bounce off it's frontal and side armor, before getting flanked by 'Fury' and shot through the weaker back armor plate.

So in that sense, it is a loosely realistic depiction of a) relative strength of Tiger v Sherman and b) tactics often used by Allied armor to engage heavy tanks like the Tiger, even if the actual encounter on screen isn't historically perfect.

beauf

Bit like Rambo is loosely realistic. Firing that M60 from the hip.

beauf

I found a lot of people don't lile old movies and especially not black and white ones. I don't get that, I find them atmospheric.

RandomViewer

beauf wrote: »

Tanks didn't fire on the move either, not if they expected to hit anything. Like wise, the Tiger, made no sense that it would move.

Think that's the only ooperational Tiger left

Homelander

RandomViewer wrote: »

Think that's the only ooperational Tiger left

It is. It was the first movie since the 40's or 50's that had a real Tiger.

From memory it was disabled and captured in North Africa.

RandomViewer

Homelander wrote: »

It is. It was the first movie since the 40's or 50's that had a real Tiger.

From memory it was disabled and captured in North Africa.

Kellys Heroes uses Russia Ts made to look like Tigers so they were scarce 50 years ago, Romanian army were still using Sherman's so they had plenty of them

Capt'n Midnight

beauf wrote: »

Of course you then have something like Bridge on the River Kwai which might a classic, but is mostly fiction.

U-571 takes the biscuit though.

"They did get one thing right: there were U-boats in the North Atlantic during the war."
— A former German U-boat commander's reaction to the film

beauf

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

U-571 takes the biscuit though.

"They did get one thing right: there were U-boats in the North Atlantic during the war."
— A former German U-boat commander's reaction to the film

I've heard it's bad.

MfMan

beauf wrote: »

I found a lot of people don't lile old movies and especially not black and white ones. I don't get that, I find them atmospheric.

If rating a movie, I'd automatically give it a mark or two more if it's in B&W.

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

Indeed Patton was that, but cribbing about its tanks would be to miss what is, in fact, a great movie about a borderline unhinged Warrior Poet; someone almost born out of his time.

It's a decent film, bolstered by a great performance by George C. Scott and Karl Malden and yes, its modern tanks aren't an issue, even if they are slightly disappointing. It gets some points back for using a Heinkel though (even if it's a post war Spanish aircraft).

But, 'Patton' isn't about the tanks. It's about a man.

'Fury', however is about the tanks. It's even named after the main tank in the movie, which is why it's a let down to see really basic tactics thrown to the wind, which ends up making that scene look stupid. I'm sure they had a consultant on the production who would have objected to the "Tiger scene" for its sheer stupidity and if he had any credibility at all, he would have been aghast at that ridiculous ending.

But David Ayer is the director and the final responsibility must fall on him. It's just a pity that modern movie makers feel the need to stick Hollywood heroics into modern war movies. That always strikes me as odd.

But, in any case, there have only been about 5 war movies ever made that I could recommend as fine examples.

Tony EH

Joe_ Public wrote: »

That's not even my biggest issue tbh. Pitts character is obviously built up as this larger than life character who manages to keep almost his entire crew alive through the most savage of battles. I mean, i could be wrong but did such an individual ever really exist? His crew, we are led to believe, fought through Africa, Italy, Normandy, Holland and into Germany and, from memory, just the one casualty i think. Tank crews from what ive read, suffered a very high casualty rate so i just struggle to get my head around all that.

I'd be very surprised if any American tank crew would have been together for that length of time. More than likely, they would have been split up. I'm sure there were some. But it would have been uncommon I reckon.

If I recall though, wasn't the radio operator killed in the tank and the young fella who survives at the end his replacement? I can't recall how the radio man died though. Usually, though, if a tank got hit, there was a good chance everyone inside was buggered. It was a messy end.

But this is a usual trope in American war films. The idea that America was in the war since North Africa, so it was a long haul, as it were, and the heroes are all veteran tough guys. That kind of thing has been knocking around since John Wayne won the war.

Tony EH

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Was Von Luck the guy who shot up all those tanks in Villers Bocage? I've read a bit about that guy. Is he the same guy also featured in The Battle of the Bulge?

Michael Wittmann was the commander of the Tiger that was at Villers-Bocage. He was the guy (or rather his gun man Bobby Woll was) that knocked out a convoy of British vehicles.

It's often mistakenly declared that he knocked out a lot of tanks in this action, but they were mainly soft skins that were taken out. In any case, for a single tank to do so much damage was pretty remarkable. But a lot of it was sheer luck too. Wittmann just happened to be in the right spot when the British column was trying to manoeuvre down a narrow road.

Wittmann and his crew were killed before the Ardennes attack, so he didn't take part in it. There Tiger was hit by rocket firing Typhoons.

Tony EH

silverharp wrote: »

this one will make your brain hurt, planes not tanks this time, you will laugh and cry in equal measure. it stretches the" whatever was lying around" to the nth, spin to 47:34 mark its from a cheap movie called Suicide Commandos

https://youtu.be/EQmtDHeZe24

I've seen it. I have a few Macaroni war movies under my belt. Realism would be the very last thing that I would expect from an Italian war movie from the 60's. :pac: