Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

How good were 'classic' movies?

Options
12346»

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Joe_ Public
    Registered Users Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    Tony EH wrote: »
    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.

    Yeah, i think it was the one casualty they had. I said earlier there weren't quite so many tank crew casualties as I'd imagined. According to a few sources i consulted, the figure varies but doesn't seem to be higher than 20%. Not exactly the "death traps" of my imagination. I thought it would be quite a bit higher than that, especially on allied side.


  • Options
    #153
    Joe_ Public
    Registered Users Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    Tony EH wrote: »
    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.

    Not sure but think i remember reading that Wittmann even had time to refuel during the battle and then come back to continue the turkey shoot.


  • Options
    #154
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,979 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Homelander wrote: »
    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.

    It's extremely loose. But that's kinda the point.

    The essential arithmetic during the war was five Shermans to one Tiger. But no tanker worth his salt would have ordered a frontal attack on a well dug in Tiger and they certainly would not have rode the line without buttoning up.

    The thing is, showing how it would have been done in reality wouldn't have been any less dramatic or exciting. The scene would still have worked in a dramatic sense.

    As it stands, it just looks amateurish and silly.


  • Options
    #155
    ballyargus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭ballyargus


    Jaysis lads, start a thread on military anachronisms in film. The lions share of the thread is now a debate about tanks


  • Options
    #156
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,979 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Ah relax. It's only been a couple of pages. :)

    Anyway, normal service has been resumed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    ballyargus wrote: »
    Jaysis lads, start a thread on military anachronisms in film. The lions share of the thread is now a debate about tanks

    Lead the way with some classics.

    Throne of Blood (1957)
    The Wages of Fear (1953)
    All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)
    The Elephant Man (1980)

    There's a list here...


  • Options
    #158
    WomanSkirtFan8
    Registered Users Posts: 768 ✭✭✭WomanSkirtFan8


    Saw Casablanca for the first time a few months back. Fantastic movie


  • Options
    #159
    WomanSkirtFan8
    Registered Users Posts: 768 ✭✭✭WomanSkirtFan8


    beauf wrote: »
    Lead the way with some classics.

    Throne of Blood (1957)
    The Wages of Fear (1953)
    All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)
    The Elephant Man (1980)

    There's a list here...

    You could throw films like Casablanca (1942), Around The World In 80 Days (1956) and The Bridge On The River Kwai (1957) in there as well.


  • Options
    #160
    Man Vs ManUre
    Registered Users Posts: 5,157 ✭✭✭Man Vs ManUre


    The Searchers is on bbc4 this evening.


Advertisement