If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hiroshima/Nagasaki vs conventional B-17 bombing | zxcv | Military Aviation | 55 | April 4th 04 07:05 AM |
WWII Aircraft still useful | Charles Talleyrand | Military Aviation | 14 | January 12th 04 01:40 AM |
FA: WWII B-3jacket, B-1 pants, Class A uniform | N329DF | Military Aviation | 1 | August 16th 03 03:41 PM |
"Target for Today" & "Thunderbolt" WWII Double Feature at Zeno'sDrive-In | Zeno | Aerobatics | 0 | August 2nd 03 07:31 PM |
"Target for Today" & "Thunderbolt": An Awesome WWII DoubleFeature at Zeno's Drive-In | zeno | Military Aviation | 0 | July 14th 03 07:31 PM |