Re: New WWII movies coming!

[The Enlightenment]

"TooPlaneCrazy7" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks for your viewpoints. I disagree with Spielberg not showing the
> viewpoints of the opposing forces. If you see his "war films" such as
Empire of
> the Sun, SPR, and Schlinder's List, you'll see that Spielberg gives the
"enemy"
> a human heart. Spielberg treats his characters with nothing short of
respect,
> unlike most directors today.

Schindlers list was unmitigated bull despite the 'gravity' and authenticity
with which it was promoted. Schindlers widow said as much and more than a
few people have torn holes in the "facts" in that film.

Schindlers List goes down the highly selective path of 'righeous gentile'
which can only be accomplished by puting your life at risk for a Jew. It is
a holocaust movie not a war movie and it barely relates to the facts
unfortunatly.

I don't see that anywhere that Spielberg give a "human heart" as you say to
any German character in SPR (saving private ryan): He turns the main German
character into a vile treacherous and dishonourable ogre as is to be
expected. As is usual Germans are shown as idiots that have 2/3rds of
their bodies hanging out of a 'crap' poorly simulated "tiger tank" ready to
get shot up like idiots when in fact these tanks did NOT have peep holes for
americans to stick thompson submachine guns into, they opperated in pairs
and hosed of infantry of each other and had Grenade lauchers that fired up
Grenades vertically to clear any infantry on or near the tanks. In 'Band of
Brothers' they are just dumb targets.

Ok I understand that the Allies (Americans) win in the end and are the good
guys (even though some of them weren't) and the Germans not but they are
just another series of americanised, stereoptyped movies in which
characters, history, technology are so modified as to be utterly
meaningless.

It would be better of Spielberg would leave films about Historical events
like this to directors and producers with more integrity and authenticity.

Even "Memphis Bell" missed an opportunity and that is the best of the films.

I'm sick of this rubbish. Taking credit for a British fia't in obtaining
code books from a u-boat is another.

To tell you the truth, I don't think Americans are able to seperate
hollywood hype and historical fact from Hollywood fiction anymore. Some of
that is due to low intelligence and knowledge that we have in all
populations but it seems so widespread and so unchallenged that most of it
is due to Hollywood's lack of authenticity.

[Peter Kemp]

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 09:21:46 GMT, "The Enlightenment"
> wrote:

>I don't see that anywhere that Spielberg give a "human heart" as you say to
>any German character in SPR (saving private ryan): He turns the main German
>character into a vile treacherous and dishonourable ogre as is to be
>expected.

Ogre? He's shown as scared out of his wits, and then is picked up by
another German unit and continues fighting. He never gave his word
that he's find Alliedf troops, so where id he lose his honour?

>As is usual Germans are shown as idiots that have 2/3rds of
>their bodies hanging out of a 'crap' poorly simulated "tiger tank" ready to
>get shot up like idiots when in fact these tanks did NOT have peep holes for
>americans to stick thompson submachine guns into

What about the Drivers vision slot like at
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWtiger.htm ?

>, they opperated in pairs
>and hosed of infantry of each other and had Grenade lauchers that fired up
>Grenades vertically to clear any infantry on or near the tanks. In 'Band of
>Brothers' they are just dumb targets.

On a narow street how can tanks be mutually supporting? That's what
the infantry was for. And don't forget the TIger was stripped of
attackers by the 20mm at one point.

No arguments about U-571 being a bag of pants though - worst film I
saw that year.

Peter Kemp

[John Keeney]

"Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
...
>
> In a special category, I believe, is Henry Fonda's "Battle of the
> Bulge." Yes, I could deal with US armor on both sides. It was the
> tumbleweeds blowing through the "Ardennes" that was a bit much.

Well, you got to go where they'll let you to film those things.
And I imagine the current residents of Bastogn might object to
the special affects.

[Cub Driver]

On 10 Aug 2004 11:42:15 -0700, (Nick) wrote:

>I'll grant you that if you take a film like SPR at face value while
>watching it, the message seems to be unclear

Personally, I thought SPR one of the worst movies I'd ever seen, in
the sense that it got everything wrong that was important--and a lot
of unimportant things as well. I would rank it below Pearl Harbor, for
example.

Perhaps what really irritated Art was that Tom Hanks was a 1990s
character suffering all the 1990s hangups, magically transported back
to 1944. He wasn't even my contemporary, never mind Art's. The things
that weighed on his soul just wouldn't have weighed on the soul of
that 1940s captain who'd gone through the Great Depression and the
years leading up to Omaha Beach.

I can't take time to list all the errors in the film. It was the
creation of two men (Spielberg and Hanks) who had never gone through
basic training, so they made every basic error it was possible to
make, based on the war movies they'd seen. It is curious that, given
this history, they were then responsible for what must be one of the
best TV doco-dramas ever made, Band of Brothers.

BOB shows that it is possible to make a decent WWII film, or at least
WWII video. But I'll be that the future lies with such fantasies as
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, in which Jude Law will lead a
merry band of adventurers in Curtiss P-40s--shark faces, yes!--against
alien invaders. I am looking forward to this more than to any film in
the past ten years. www.warbirdforum.com/skycap.htm

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[[email protected]]

"Battle of the Bulge.........I could deal with US armor on both sides. It
was the tumbleweeds blowing through the "Ardennes" that was a bit much."

roflmao :)

[Tom Cervo]

>Perhaps what really irritated Art was that Tom Hanks was a 1990s
>character suffering all the 1990s hangups, magically transported back
>to 1944. He wasn't even my contemporary, never mind Art's. The things
>that weighed on his soul just wouldn't have weighed on the soul of
>that 1940s captain who'd gone through the Great Depression and the
>years leading up to Omaha Beach.

I looked at the whole squad and flashed back to Lee Marvin in "The Dirty
Dozen". He was two years older than Hanks when he made that and he looked like
he could have taken on the whole bunch singlehanded.
The story was based on a real episode related in Ambrose's "Citizen Soldiers"
or "Band of Brothers"--a paratrooper whose brothers had been killed was taken
out of combat--but the searcher was a chaplain, on his own. THAT might have
made a better movie, and a better role for Hanks, but they seem to have wanted
to remake a "Combat" episode with a big budget.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Tom Cervo" > wrote in message
...
> >Perhaps what really irritated Art was that Tom Hanks was a 1990s
> >character suffering all the 1990s hangups, magically transported back
> >to 1944. He wasn't even my contemporary, never mind Art's. The things
> >that weighed on his soul just wouldn't have weighed on the soul of
> >that 1940s captain who'd gone through the Great Depression and the
> >years leading up to Omaha Beach.
>
> I looked at the whole squad and flashed back to Lee Marvin in "The Dirty
> Dozen". He was two years older than Hanks when he made that and he looked
like
> he could have taken on the whole bunch singlehanded.

Well yes but Lee Marvin was a US marine who saw action
in the Pacific and was wounded during the invasion of Saipan.

Keith





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Tom Cervo]

>Well yes but Lee Marvin was a US marine who saw action
>in the Pacific and was wounded during the invasion of Saipan.
>

There were a lot of veterans who made movies, but the eerie thing about Marvin
is that until very late in life he looked like he was still active duty--and at
46 he looked like he could take men half his age.

[TooPlaneCrazy7]

Well you guys are not gonna like the new Tom Cruise WWII film about the Battle
of Britain.....

[TooPlaneCrazy7]

>(TooPlaneCrazy7) wrote:
>
>> Well you guys are not gonna like the new Tom Cruise WWII film about the
>Battle
>> of Britain.....
>
>Please tell me you're joking.
>
>Please.

His character is Billy Fiske. American volunteer pilot for the Brits in Battle
of Britain. They were the Eagle Squadron.

Olympic Gold medalist.

Love story.

Guns. Explosions.

Top Gun 2?

Yep, it's real: "The actor also spoke admiringly of Mann, who will direct him
again in "The Few," an upcoming biopic of an American WWII pilot set to begin
shooting later this year. "The layers upon layers that he puts into the film
— that's what makes him Michael Mann."
--from
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1091707571964_5/?hub=E
ntertainment

[[email protected]]

Not too fussed about the plots or how real/true the movies are, I just soak
up anything with combat-type flight scenes. I guess movies like The Blue
Max, 633 Squadron, the Dam Busters etc., made a big impression on me in my
formative years. The History channel was introduced in my country this year
and I am glued to anything to do with air combat, especially WWII. The gun
camera footage is just fascinating!

Great movie idea to pass on to Hollywood: The George Welch story.
http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Welch1.html

The huge volumes of crap coming out of Hollywood nowadays makes even Top Gun
look like a classic. Bring em on.

"TooPlaneCrazy7" > wrote in message
...
> >(TooPlaneCrazy7) wrote:
> >
> >> Well you guys are not gonna like the new Tom Cruise WWII film about the
> >Battle
> >> of Britain.....
> >
> >Please tell me you're joking.
> >
> >Please.
>
> His character is Billy Fiske. American volunteer pilot for the Brits in
Battle
> of Britain. They were the Eagle Squadron.
>
> Olympic Gold medalist.
>
> Love story.
>
> Guns. Explosions.
>
> Top Gun 2?
>
> Yep, it's real: "The actor also spoke admiringly of Mann, who will direct
him
> again in "The Few," an upcoming biopic of an American WWII pilot set to
begin
> shooting later this year. "The layers upon layers that he puts into the
film
> - that's what makes him Michael Mann."
> --from
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1091707571964_5/?hub=E
> ntertainment

[Keith Willshaw]

"TooPlaneCrazy7" > wrote in message
...
> >(TooPlaneCrazy7) wrote:
> >
> >> Well you guys are not gonna like the new Tom Cruise WWII film about the
> >Battle
> >> of Britain.....
> >
> >Please tell me you're joking.
> >
> >Please.
>
> His character is Billy Fiske. American volunteer pilot for the Brits in
Battle
> of Britain. They were the Eagle Squadron.
>
>

I dont suppose its worth pointing out that the eagle
squadrons didnt arrive until AFTER the BOB
had been fought ?

No I thought not.

Sigh

Keith

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: New WWII movies coming!
>From: "Keith Willshaw"
>Date: 8/11/2004 11:55 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"TooPlaneCrazy7" > wrote in message
...
>> >(TooPlaneCrazy7) wrote:
>> >
>> >> Well you guys are not gonna like the new Tom Cruise WWII film about the
>> >Battle
>> >> of Britain.....
>> >
>> >Please tell me you're joking.
>> >
>> >Please.
>>
>> His character is Billy Fiske. American volunteer pilot for the Brits in
>Battle
>> of Britain. They were the Eagle Squadron.
>>
>>
>
>I dont suppose its worth pointing out that the eagle
>squadrons didnt arrive until AFTER the BOB
>had been fought ?
>
>No I thought not.
>
>Sigh
>
>Keith


Y'mean they won the B of B without Tom Cruise????? Unbelievable. !!



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: New WWII movies coming!
>From:
>Date: 8/11/2004 10:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Not too fussed about the plots or how real/true the movies are, I just soak
>up anything with combat-type flight scenes. I guess movies like The Blue
>Max, 633 Squadron, the Dam Busters etc., made a big impression on me in my
>formative years. The History channel was introduced in my country this year
>and I am glued to anything to do with air combat, especially WWII. The gun
>camera footage is just fascinating!
>
>Great movie idea to pass on to Hollywood: The George Welch story.
>http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Welch1.html
>
>The huge volumes of crap coming out of Hollywood nowadays makes even Top Gun
>look like a classic. Bring em on.
>
>"TooPlaneCrazy7" > wrote in message
...
>> >(TooPlaneCrazy7) wrote:
>> >
>> >> Well you guys are not gonna like the new Tom Cruise WWII film about the
>> >Battle
>> >> of Britain.....
>> >
>> >Please tell me you're joking.
>> >
>> >Please.
>>
>> His character is Billy Fiske. American volunteer pilot for the Brits in
>Battle
>> of Britain. They were the Eagle Squadron.
>>
>> Olympic Gold medalist.
>>
>> Love story.
>>
>> Guns. Explosions.
>>
>> Top Gun 2?
>>
>> Yep, it's real: "The actor also spoke admiringly of Mann, who will direct
>him
>> again in "The Few," an upcoming biopic of an American WWII pilot set to
>begin
>> shooting later this year. "The layers upon layers that he puts into the
>film
>> - that's what makes him Michael Mann."
>> --from
>> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1091707571964_5/?hub=E
>> ntertainment

Have you seen 12 O'Cock High?



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Dave Kearton]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
||
| Have you seen 12 O'Cock High?
|
|
|
| Arthur Kramer





I think that's about the best (air) war movie of all time. I
shudder to think what will happen if 'they' decide to remake it.



It'll probably have fkkkkn Steve Martin

--

Cheers


Dave Kearton


(oh NO , I've got _happy_ feet)

[Tom Cervo]

>His character is Billy Fiske. American volunteer pilot for the Brits in
>Battle
>of Britain. They were the Eagle Squadron.
>
>Olympic Gold medalist.
>
>Love story.
>
>Guns. Explosions.
>
>Top Gun 2?
>
>Yep, it's real: "The actor also spoke admiringly of Mann, who will direct him
>again in "The Few," an upcoming biopic of an American WWII pilot set to begin
>shooting later this year. "The layers upon layers that he puts into the film
>— that's what makes him Michael Mann."

For one thing, Fiske is a real person who did what he did--an athletic playboy
who stepped up and joined the RAF and flew in the Battle of Britain--if
anything, he was more handsome and charismatic than Cruise. There were 11 or 12
Americans flying with the RAF then, one of whom survived the war.
For another thing, look up some of Mann's movies--"Heat" might be a good
start--he's not a lightweight and he handles action and men in action well.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: New WWII movies coming!
>From: "Dave Kearton"
>Date: 8/12/2004 6:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>||
>| Have you seen 12 O'Cock High?
>|
>|
>|
>| Arthur Kramer
>
>
>
>
>
>I think that's about the best (air) war movie of all time. I
>shudder to think what will happen if 'they' decide to remake it.
>
>
>
>It'll probably have fkkkkn Steve Martin
>
>--
>
>Cheers
>
>
>Dave Kearton
>
>
>(oh NO , I've got _happy_ feet)
>
>
>


It's my all time favorite WW II combat film.It has one moment in it that
reminds me of moments of reality. It is when the plane gets hit by flak and
the crew is all excited and babbling and the pilot gets on the intercom and
quietly says," Ok now everyone just settle down, just settle down" A truly
realistic moment.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Keith Willshaw]

"Tom Cervo" > wrote in message
...

>
> For one thing, Fiske is a real person who did what he did--an athletic
playboy
> who stepped up and joined the RAF and flew in the Battle of Britain--if
> anything, he was more handsome and charismatic than Cruise. There were 11
or 12
> Americans flying with the RAF then, one of whom survived the war.
> For another thing, look up some of Mann's movies--"Heat" might be a good
> start--he's not a lightweight and he handles action and men in action
well.

Indeed but he didnt do so in an Eagle Squadron, he flew with
601 Squadron having joined the RAF in 1939

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Guy Alcala]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> "Tom Cervo" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > For one thing, Fiske is a real person who did what he did--an athletic
> playboy
> > who stepped up and joined the RAF and flew in the Battle of Britain--if
> > anything, he was more handsome and charismatic than Cruise. There were 11
> or 12
> > Americans flying with the RAF then, one of whom survived the war.
> > For another thing, look up some of Mann's movies--"Heat" might be a good
> > start--he's not a lightweight and he handles action and men in action
> well.
>
> Indeed but he didnt do so in an Eagle Squadron, he flew with
> 601 Squadron having joined the RAF in 1939

Should he be represented in the film, no doubt we can expect 'Shorty' Keough to be
played by Danny DeVito (so what's 30 or 40 years age difference to Hollywood) ;-) Any
nominations for who should play Andy Mamedoff or Red Tobin? Here's an AFa aritcle on
US pilotsin the BoB:

www.afa.org/magazine/1990/0190eagles.asp

Guy

[Keith Willshaw]

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>

>
> Should he be represented in the film, no doubt we can expect 'Shorty'
Keough to be
> played by Danny DeVito (so what's 30 or 40 years age difference to
Hollywood) ;-) Any
> nominations for who should play Andy Mamedoff or Red Tobin? Here's an AFa
aritcle on
> US pilotsin the BoB:
>
> www.afa.org/magazine/1990/0190eagles.asp
>
> Guy
>

Its always amazed me that Hollywood hasnt picked up the
part played by US pilots in bomber command. Two of the
pilots in the dambuster raid were American, Dinghy Young
and Joe McCarthy.

Keith

[Presidente Alcazar]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 09:46:09 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>Its always amazed me that Hollywood hasnt picked up the
>part played by US pilots in bomber command. Two of the
>pilots in the dambuster raid were American, Dinghy Young
>and Joe McCarthy.

Nothing amazing about it - Americans are seldom portayed in a
subordinate role in another nation's war effort. If they're
portrayed, they are required to play a more substantial institutional
or leadership role. A film showing the heroism of Americans as
components of an RAF unit, almost indistinguishably from Canadians,
does not fit the presumptive requirements.

Shame, though, as there were plenty of Americans serving in
Commonwealth forces outside the Eagle Squadrons, and they could do
with some celebration as much as anyone else.

Gavin Bailey

--

Apply three phase AC 415V direct to MB. This work real good. How you know, you
ask? Simple, chip get real HOT. System not work, but no can tell from this.
Exactly same as before. Do it now. - Bart Kwan En

[Guy Alcala]

Presidente Alcazar wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 09:46:09 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>
> >Its always amazed me that Hollywood hasnt picked up the
> >part played by US pilots in bomber command. Two of the
> >pilots in the dambuster raid were American, Dinghy Young
> >and Joe McCarthy.
>
> Nothing amazing about it - Americans are seldom portayed in a
> subordinate role in another nation's war effort. If they're
> portrayed, they are required to play a more substantial institutional
> or leadership role. A film showing the heroism of Americans as
> components of an RAF unit, almost indistinguishably from Canadians,
> does not fit the presumptive requirements.
>
> Shame, though, as there were plenty of Americans serving in
> Commonwealth forces outside the Eagle Squadrons, and they could do
> with some celebration as much as anyone else.

We did get a nice supporting part in "A Piece of Cake,', but then that WAS a British
production.

Guy

[Richard Brooks]

Guy Alcala wrote:
> Presidente Alcazar wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 09:46:09 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
>> > wrote:
>>
[Snipped]

>> Americans are seldom portayed in a
>> subordinate role in another nation's war effort. If they're
>> portrayed, they are required to play a more substantial institutional
>> or leadership role. A film showing the heroism of Americans as
>> components of an RAF unit, almost indistinguishably from Canadians,
>> does not fit the presumptive requirements.
>>
>> Shame, though, as there were plenty of Americans serving in
>> Commonwealth forces outside the Eagle Squadrons, and they could do
>> with some celebration as much as anyone else.
>
> We did get a nice supporting part in "A Piece of Cake,', but then
> that WAS a British production.
>
And we got a return match in 1000 Plane Raid with an RAF pilot! ;-)

Shame about the suspicious spitfire cockpit canopy where the spitfire gets
very close to the B17 though.

Richard.

[Presidente Alcazar]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:43:35 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>> Nothing amazing about it - Americans are seldom portayed in a
>> subordinate role in another nation's war effort. If they're
>> portrayed, they are required to play a more substantial institutional
>> or leadership role. A film showing the heroism of Americans as
>> components of an RAF unit, almost indistinguishably from Canadians,
>> does not fit the presumptive requirements.
>>
>> Shame, though, as there were plenty of Americans serving in
>> Commonwealth forces outside the Eagle Squadrons, and they could do
>> with some celebration as much as anyone else.
>
>We did get a nice supporting part in "A Piece of Cake,', but then that WAS a British
>production.

Take a close look at the American character in the original book;
that's a part which looks specifically crafted to hit all the buttons
I've described above, just like any other hackneyed Hollywood script.

At that point I have to say I chucked the book away. It's got to the
point where the understandable nationalist bias of Hollywood has
become unquestioningly dominant in other media which cringingly look
over their shoulders as potential Hollywood movie scripts, and as a
consequence no portrayal of Americans can be made which violates the
basic premises of American exceptionalism.

Gavin Bailey

--

Apply three phase AC 415V direct to MB. This work real good. How you know, you
ask? Simple, chip get real HOT. System not work, but no can tell from this.
Exactly same as before. Do it now. - Bart Kwan En

[The Enlightenment]

"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 09:21:46 GMT, "The Enlightenment"
> > wrote:
>
> >I don't see that anywhere that Spielberg give a "human heart" as you say
to
> >any German character in SPR (saving private ryan): He turns the main
German
> >character into a vile treacherous and dishonourable ogre as is to be
> >expected.
>
> Ogre? He's shown as scared out of his wits, and then is picked up by
> another German unit and continues fighting. He never gave his word
> that he's find Alliedf troops, so where id he lose his honour?
>
> >As is usual Germans are shown as idiots that have 2/3rds of
> >their bodies hanging out of a 'crap' poorly simulated "tiger tank" ready
to
> >get shot up like idiots when in fact these tanks did NOT have peep holes
for
> >americans to stick thompson submachine guns into
>
> What about the Drivers vision slot like at
> http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWtiger.htm ?

That is a very poor web site.

Just about all WWII tanks had bullet-proof glass in vision slits. In ' Armor
Battles Of The Waffen-SS' an account refers to glass having to be changed
due to numerous bullet hits rendering it opaque.

Spielberger's book 'Tiger' which has a good photo of the driver's position.
The glass is a solid block, bullet-proof and looks to be at least 2cm
thick.It is clamped into an internal frame for ease of changing if damaged.
That's the tiger I. The tiger II had an episcope/periscope.

Trying to take out a Tiger I with a .45 was pure, grade 'A' Hollywood BS.

The website also makes the statement that the tiger was not a succes because
it was not reliable. That is not true. Both marks of tiger particularly I
became reliable after initial modifications.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger2.htm
Numerous statements have been made that the Tiger II was too heavy, too big,
too slow, "a casemate", etc. One is left with the impression that it was
lucky to move at all. These banal generalities, stated as incontrovertible
facts, are never substantiated by actual specifications, test reports or
after-action accounts from the units that used the Tiger II. In spite of
these frequently repeated remarks, the capability of the Tiger II to
negotiate obstacles and cross terrain was equivalent to or better than most
German and allied tanks.

The Tiger II initially experienced numerous automotive problems which
required a continuous series of minor modifications to correct. These
problems can be traced to two main causes: leaking seals and gaskets and an
over taxed drive train originally designed for a 40 metric ton vehicle. The
problem of keeping a Tiger II in running condition was compounded by a
shortage of skilled drivers many of whom may have never experienced driving
any vehicle prior to entering the service. In addition they were provided
only limited driver's training, and then usually on a different type of
panzer, and received their own Tiger II usually within a few days before
being shipped to the front. But, with mature drivers, taking required
maintenance halts, and modification of key automotive components, the Tiger
II could be maintained in a satisfactory operational condition. Status
reports from the Western Front, dated March 1945, showed that the percentage
of Tigers operational at the Front was about equal to the PzKpfw IV and as
good as or better than the Panther.

http://64.26.50.215/armorsite/tiger1-02.htm
The 13.(Tiger) Kompanie, of Panzer Regiment Großdeutschland, reported on the
armor protection of the Tiger: "During a scouting patrol two Tigers
encountered about 20 Russian tanks on their front, while additional Russian
tanks attacked from behind. A battle developed in which the armor and
weapons of the Tiger were extraordinarily successful. Both Tigers were hit
(mainly by 76.2 mm armor-piercing shells) 10 or more times at ranges from
500 to 1,000 meters. The armor held up all around. Not a single round
penetrated through the armor. Also hits in the running gear, in which the
suspension arms were torn away, did not immobilize the Tiger. While 76.2 mm
anti-tank shells continuously struck outside the armor, on the inside,
undisturbed, the commander, gunner, and loader selected targets, aimed, and
fired. The end result was 10 enemy tanks knocked out by two Tigers within 15
minutes" (JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat
Tactics; op. cit.).






>
> >, they opperated in pairs
> >and hosed of infantry of each other and had Grenade lauchers that fired
up
> >Grenades vertically to clear any infantry on or near the tanks. In 'Band
of
> >Brothers' they are just dumb targets.
>
> On a narow street how can tanks be mutually supporting?

I am not a tanker but here is my guess. The lead tank is protected by the
rear tank. The rear tank is protected by the lead tanks mantlet gun by
radio and of course its own grenade lauchers.

Better hope the tiger runs o




> That's what
> the infantry was for. And don't forget the TIger was stripped of
> attackers by the 20mm at one point.





>
> No arguments about U-571 being a bag of pants though - worst film I
> saw that year.
>
> Peter Kemp

[robert arndt]

> > What about the Drivers vision slot like at
> > http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWtiger.htm ?
>
> That is a very poor web site.
>
> Just about all WWII tanks had bullet-proof glass in vision slits. In ' Armor
> Battles Of The Waffen-SS' an account refers to glass having to be changed
> due to numerous bullet hits rendering it opaque.
>
> Spielberger's book 'Tiger' which has a good photo of the driver's position.
> The glass is a solid block, bullet-proof and looks to be at least 2cm
> thick.It is clamped into an internal frame for ease of changing if damaged.
> That's the tiger I. The tiger II had an episcope/periscope.
>
> Trying to take out a Tiger I with a .45 was pure, grade 'A' Hollywood BS.


This site notes the inaccuracies of SPR in regard to the Tiger I scenes:
http://www.sproe.com/t/tiger-tank.html

Rob

[TooPlaneCrazy7]

>> Trying to take out a Tiger I with a .45 was pure, grade 'A' Hollywood BS.

From what I remember, Spielberg said that it was a play on the audience's
imagination--what actually took out the tank were the P51 Mustangs that flew
right over heard.

[Hans-Joachim Maximilian]

Presidente Alcazar > wrote in message >...
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:43:35 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:
>
> >> Nothing amazing about it - Americans are seldom portayed in a
> >> subordinate role in another nation's war effort. If they're
> >> portrayed, they are required to play a more substantial institutional
> >> or leadership role. A film showing the heroism of Americans as
> >> components of an RAF unit, almost indistinguishably from Canadians,
> >> does not fit the presumptive requirements.
> >>
> >> Shame, though, as there were plenty of Americans serving in
> >> Commonwealth forces outside the Eagle Squadrons, and they could do
> >> with some celebration as much as anyone else.
> >
> >We did get a nice supporting part in "A Piece of Cake,', but then that WAS a British
> >production.
>
> Take a close look at the American character in the original book;
> that's a part which looks specifically crafted to hit all the buttons
> I've described above, just like any other hackneyed Hollywood script.
>
> At that point I have to say I chucked the book away. It's got to the
> point where the understandable nationalist bias of Hollywood has
> become unquestioningly dominant in other media which cringingly look
> over their shoulders as potential Hollywood movie scripts, and as a
> consequence no portrayal of Americans can be made which violates the
> basic premises of American exceptionalism.
>
> Gavin Bailey



I gather Abu Ghraib the movie, has most of the blame shifted to a few
Baathist relics who sneaked up from the cellar to work their foul art.

In a rape room busting epic, the US blow the place to pieces and
rescue 'political prisoners' held in chains & women's lingerie against
their will.

The Americans are shocked to find that Abu Ghraib is the garrison home
of the dreaded 519th Military Intelligence Battalion.

The Ministry of Torture had flown them in from Taliban infested
Afghanistan a few days earlier to torture children in front of their
mothers.

The Americans are awarded the UNICEF medal.

[John Mullen]

"Hans-Joachim Maximilian" > wrote in
message om...
> Presidente Alcazar > wrote in
> message >...
>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:43:35 GMT, Guy Alcala
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> Nothing amazing about it - Americans are seldom portayed in a
>> >> subordinate role in another nation's war effort. If they're
>> >> portrayed, they are required to play a more substantial institutional
>> >> or leadership role. A film showing the heroism of Americans as
>> >> components of an RAF unit, almost indistinguishably from Canadians,
>> >> does not fit the presumptive requirements.
>> >>
>> >> Shame, though, as there were plenty of Americans serving in
>> >> Commonwealth forces outside the Eagle Squadrons, and they could do
>> >> with some celebration as much as anyone else.
>> >
>> >We did get a nice supporting part in "A Piece of Cake,', but then that
>> >WAS a British
>> >production.
>>
>> Take a close look at the American character in the original book;
>> that's a part which looks specifically crafted to hit all the buttons
>> I've described above, just like any other hackneyed Hollywood script.
>>
>> At that point I have to say I chucked the book away. It's got to the
>> point where the understandable nationalist bias of Hollywood has
>> become unquestioningly dominant in other media which cringingly look
>> over their shoulders as potential Hollywood movie scripts, and as a
>> consequence no portrayal of Americans can be made which violates the
>> basic premises of American exceptionalism.
>>
>> Gavin Bailey
>
>
>
> I gather Abu Ghraib the movie, has most of the blame shifted to a few
> Baathist relics who sneaked up from the cellar to work their foul art.
>
> In a rape room busting epic, the US blow the place to pieces and
> rescue 'political prisoners' held in chains & women's lingerie against
> their will.
>
> The Americans are shocked to find that Abu Ghraib is the garrison home
> of the dreaded 519th Military Intelligence Battalion.
>
> The Ministry of Torture had flown them in from Taliban infested
> Afghanistan a few days earlier to torture children in front of their
> mothers.
>
> The Americans are awarded the UNICEF medal.

LOL

John