New WWII movies coming!

"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.

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

"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

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

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.

(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/ArticleNew...71964_5/?hub=E
ntertainment

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/ArticleNew...71964_5/?hub=E
ntertainment

Subject: 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/ArticleNew...71964_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

"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)

Subject: 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