Ending battle in Saving Private Ryan...historicaly accurate?

Discussions on WW2 and pre-WW2 related movies, games, military art and other fiction.
User avatar
HJ Division Grenadier
Member
Posts: 390
Joined: 21 Mar 2002 23:22
Location: United Kingdom

Das Reich etc

Post by HJ Division Grenadier » 27 Aug 2002 20:36

What you all have to remember is by this stage of the war, not only were the SS units, but all the Wermacht were becoming depleted in not only manpower but equipment. The allies had a near never-ending supply of men and materials. I think man for man the SS troops (and I do only mean the Germanic SS+Eurpoean legions) were more motivated to fight than their counterparts, with the exception of maybe airborne forces of the allies.
The 'Bulge' was a mixture of problems for the Germans, fuel being the main problem, allied airpower, unobtainable goals, weather etc were to all play their parts too.

gabriel pagliarani
Member
Posts: 1583
Joined: 01 Aug 2002 03:11
Location: ITALY

Arnhem

Post by gabriel pagliarani » 27 Aug 2002 22:54

Sir Grenadier,
the only reason because the British Red Devil' Para division was destroyed at Arnhem Bridge is that the choosen landing fields were 10 km (by feet)far, instead 2nd SS Pz.Dv. was in s' Hertogenbosh Forest only far 6 km (by tanks!) The forces were so mixed that the closest allied tactical air support was impossible. Also the radio equipment of paratroopers never worked failing in helping them with the closest tactical air support necessary to prevail on enemies in such a panzern-guerrilla house by house. The responsability of this failure and the following tragedy of Red Devils and Polish paras was in full charge of Monty' s headquarter only: he launched his elite Div. over the best German Armoured Div. displaied on Western Front without knowing where it was really, ignoring all the warnings of intelligencies! You said the truth because such an air offensive involves the hard job of millions of men, but the failure of Market -Garden and the loss of thousands lives was only of Montgomery. Eisenhower choose the worst allied leader for a so complex and dangerous operation and he gave Hitler almost 6 months more of life. In my opinion the bulge was a consequence of the failed offensive thru Holland.

Alex F.
Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 02 May 2002 16:33
Location: USA

Re: Not exactly.

Post by Alex F. » 28 Aug 2002 15:21

gabriel pagliarani wrote:Sir Caldric,
I suggest you to watch another beatiful movie: "Patton, general of steel" ( I don't know the english title)in wich it is emphatized how the Lord, after his long praying, changed the weather on the battlefield a minute before 101 Air borne Dv "Screaming Eagle" was erased! For the story, without emphasy, it is a fact that the air power changed only in half a day the written destiny of 101Dv. Patton was the real winner of the struggle for Ardennes only by Air Power.


Tell that to a Bulge 101st Airborne veteran; they've never felt that Patton "saved" them.

Alex

gabriel pagliarani
Member
Posts: 1583
Joined: 01 Aug 2002 03:11
Location: ITALY

Post by gabriel pagliarani » 28 Aug 2002 17:19

But it happened. They were relieved with only 3 ammos each...not more than few minutes of fire. Alex, no hero in true world can stop a Tiger II using a bayonet only. Too many Swarzenegger's and Rambo's movies in your selection. I have read 20 years ago (I am not a baby, Alex) some declaration of veterans ( ..also an italo-american baker picked up from kitchens with a Garand and an hemet then sent in a fox-hole wearing his white apron..) and I am sure that their age must be around 80. Only few of them are able to substain a reliable witnesses. But you relly think that a soldier in a cool hole (-10°C) without food and any rest from at least 3 days and nights can understand all the things happening on the whole front? He can recognize who really are his own comrades only.

User avatar
Jeff O
Member
Posts: 3033
Joined: 15 Aug 2002 07:41
Location: The Old Republik

Post by Jeff O » 28 Aug 2002 18:39

Oh i think the 101st were about ready to be saved before Patton got there.

Alex F.
Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 02 May 2002 16:33
Location: USA

Post by Alex F. » 28 Aug 2002 19:43

Again, my reply to both of you is tell that to a 101st veteran.

Regardless of what YOU think, they were there, and THE VETS are the ones to judge as to whether or not they needed "rescuing".

All you can do is surmise based on movies and books and make snide comments about "my movie selection".

Perhaps that was just poor translation on your part, but it came across as an insult.

Capite quello mi che dice che la mia selezione di movie includa troppo Rambo stia insultando? Ritengo che la vostra discussione è scarsa perché non potete mantenersi dagli insulti piccoli.
:roll:

gabriel pagliarani
Member
Posts: 1583
Joined: 01 Aug 2002 03:11
Location: ITALY

pardon

Post by gabriel pagliarani » 28 Aug 2002 20:41

Dear Alex,
I beg your pardon. I never thought to insult any one. The real meaning of the things I said to you was : "only Rambo & Schwartzy are able to stop a Tiger II with bayonet only". Perhaps I told you this thought in the same manner I have to tell you in italian and in italian It is absolutely non -offensive, believe to me. There are many differents way to say the same thing in any part of the world and I know that the same thing said from a British could be soundly offensive for an american and viceversa...what for an italian! The same equation must be applied for Vets...I don' t think their heroism was less in withstanding a 15 days continuos attack exerted from the last powerful Nazy Army in the freeze of Belgium without sleeping
and eating only cool K-rations. Also the thought as you have understood about Patton is not correct: I spoke about Air power that freed Bastogne and Patton was a great general of Army and not of Air Force. Sorry for the mismatching, but I feel that it occurred up to me.

Alex F.
Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 02 May 2002 16:33
Location: USA

Post by Alex F. » 28 Aug 2002 21:39

Ah, I understand now. Please accept my apologies in return. :)

Sono spiacente per la confusione.

Alex

User avatar
Jeff O
Member
Posts: 3033
Joined: 15 Aug 2002 07:41
Location: The Old Republik

Post by Jeff O » 28 Aug 2002 23:07

Which Vets didn't want to be relieved from the Battle of the Bulge??

Alex F.
Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 02 May 2002 16:33
Location: USA

Post by Alex F. » 29 Aug 2002 01:18

Surfkorps wrote:Which Vets didn't want to be relieved from the Battle of the Bulge??


You misunderstand. Of course they appreciated that the battle was over. They just didn't feel like Patton "rescued" them.

Alex

User avatar
Jeff O
Member
Posts: 3033
Joined: 15 Aug 2002 07:41
Location: The Old Republik

Post by Jeff O » 29 Aug 2002 01:41

yeah he prolly thought they were cowards for not attacking the Germans continously :)

gabriel pagliarani
Member
Posts: 1583
Joined: 01 Aug 2002 03:11
Location: ITALY

Air power on Bulge

Post by gabriel pagliarani » 29 Aug 2002 02:10

I am trying to pick up the level of such discussion. Someone said in this forum that both lines in the Bulge were without close air support. It is not completely true. The French Ace Pierre Clostermann in a beatiful book which italian title was "La grande giostra" (The great merry-go-round) described exactly how the Panzer attack was previously covered by the last massive offensive action of Luftwaffe. At dawn all the allied airports in France and in Holland were attacked simultaneously and hundreds of transports, bombers and fighter were destroyed at ground. This was the main reason , plus the fogs obviously, of the lack in close air support to allies. Therefore Luftwaffe spent last forces in a strategic effective coverage of the panzern attack, not close as in allied habits but almost effective and it is uncorrect to say that the Wehrmacht was without air support. By the way and before 2 weeks finally the fogs dispelled the front line and the allied close air tactical support changed the events.
Pay attention because once in WW2 in the same struggle were employed both tactical air doctrines: the tactical close air support of allies against
the strategical far support typical of Luftwaffe. The 1st tuned on Salomon Islands, the 2nd in Poland. There was a 3rd close tact doctrine performed by Rudel, but it worked only for him because too much linked to the superseeded Stuka: this effective anti-tank doctrine now is performed with A-10 and armoured helicopters.

User avatar
Wolfkin
Member
Posts: 773
Joined: 25 May 2002 18:23
Location: Calgary,AB,Canada

Post by Wolfkin » 03 Sep 2002 01:05

People keep referring to Bastogne. I would like to point out that Bastogne has been, how shall I say, romanticized and glamorized over the years. I suggest that people read more than just two or three books on the subject and research it further. And avoid books by Stephen Ambrose.

Here is a post I made on another forum about Bastogne:

Bastogne:

This battle has so much myth attached to it it's almost funny! The first thing one has to do is seperate this battle into three parts because the battle is actually three stages. The fighting before the siege, the siege itself, and the fighting after the siege. The common-held misconception is that "The defenders of Bastogne held out for weeks against thousands of Nazis and hundreds of Tiger tanks". Well, there were NO Tiger tanks in the area and the defenders and attackers were most likely even-matched in numbers.

Between December 17th and 19th the 2nd Panzer Division and the Panzer Lehr Division fought through defenses laid out by the 28th Infantry Division and CCR 9th Armoured Division and CCB 10th Armoured Division. Following closely was the 26th Volksgrenadiers. On December 19th the 101st Airborne Division arrived in Bastogne. In the next several days the German forces would close in on Bastogne, but the 2nd Panzer Division and most of Panzer Lehr would bypass the town.

The siege of Bastogne, basically the time when the town was actually surrounded, was from December 22nd until 26th, when the town was relieved by the 4th Armoured Division. During this time, the American forces in Bastogne were: the U.S. 101st Airborne Division, CCR 9th Armoured Division, CCB 10th Armoured Division as well as stragglers and elements of the 28th Infantry Division. The German forces surrounding Bastogne?

Well, the 2nd Panzer Division had bypassed the town and was no longer in the area, Panzer Lehr had left the area but left behind a Kampfgruppe built around a Panzergrenadier Regiment, the 26th Volksgrenadier Division, elements of 15th Panzergrenadier Division and elements of the 5th Parachute to the south. The 5th Parachute Division, most of the 15th Panzergrenadier Division, Fuehrer Grenadier Brigade and the 79th Volksgrenadier Division mainly fought against the Relief Attack launched by the U.S. IIIrd Corps.

The U.S. IIIrd Corps relieved Bastogne on December 26th when the 4th Armoured Division fought their way through. The other U.S. units, the 26th and 80th Infantry Divisions supported the attack.

But, it was actually after the siege and relief when some more German units were put into the battle. From December 27th until January 1st the Fuehrer Begleit Brigade, 1st SS Panzer Division, 9th SS Panzer Division, 12th SS Panzer Division, 9th, 167th, and 340th Volksgrenadier Divisions. This is when some German units, like sPzAbt 506 brought some Tiger II's to the area. The U.S. threw in more Divisions as well: 6th Armoured Division, 11th Armoured Division, 35th, 87th and 90th Infantry Divisions, the 17th Airborne Division and CCA 9th Armoured Division.

The battles after the siege continued on in the area in and around Bastogne from December 26th, 1944 until January 5th, 1945. So, the picture painted that " a few airborne troops held out for weeks against hundreds of Nazi tanks" is far from the truth.

Cheers,

Wolfkin

User avatar
Romulus
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: 03 Aug 2002 02:18
Location: Pennsylvania

Post by Romulus » 03 Sep 2002 01:19

Well said wolfkin!

User avatar
Jeff O
Member
Posts: 3033
Joined: 15 Aug 2002 07:41
Location: The Old Republik

Post by Jeff O » 03 Sep 2002 01:21

I disagree and think that Ambrose is an excellent writer.

Return to “Movies, games & other fiction”