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

Discussions on WW2 and pre-WW2 related movies, games, military art and other fiction.
User avatar
Romulus
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: 03 Aug 2002 02:18
Location: Pennsylvania

Post by Romulus » 03 Sep 2002 01:28

Surfkorps wrote:I disagree and think that Ambrose is an excellent writer.
Writer, yes. historian, no.

He made a remark on the history channel about every event in the 20th century has revolved around D-DAY. I just had to laugh at that one...

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

Post by Jeff O » 03 Sep 2002 01:33

How is that statement incorrect?? I agree with it. It was by far the largest military operation that has ever taken place.

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

Post by Wolfkin » 03 Sep 2002 01:34

I agree Romulus!

Ambrose is an excellent writer. But in regards to historical fact he is very inaccurate. He is biased and twists the events around to suit his point of view. He is not the only writer that does this, quite a few actually do.

That is why when I do my research I try to check as many sources as I can and cross-reference material to get a good, balanced view. This is what many people should do.

Cheers,

Wolfkin

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

Post by Wolfkin » 03 Sep 2002 01:38

Uhhh...Surfkorps...D-Day was the largest amphibious operation in history, not largest military operation in history...look on the Eastern Front for that...besides...but how can every event in the 20th century revolve around D-Day???

Think about it for a moment...

Cheers,

Wolfkin

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

Post by Alex F. » 03 Sep 2002 02:57

Wolfkin wrote:Uhhh...Surfkorps...D-Day was the largest amphibious operation in history, not largest military operation in history...look on the Eastern Front for that...besides...but how can every event in the 20th century revolve around D-Day???

Think about it for a moment...

Cheers,

Wolfkin


Maybe because it's the day that Nazi Germany's fate was sealed?

/me dons flame retardent suit...

;)
Alex

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

Post by Wolfkin » 03 Sep 2002 03:24

Hey Alex F,

No need to don a suit :), sure that could be the day that Nazi Germany's fate was sealed...events on the Eastern Front might argue against that...BUT... still, how could every event in the 20th Century revolve around that? The 20th Century was from 1901 to 2000, or 1900 to 2000...they are still under debate about that...well there was no year 0, so 1st Century 1-100, 2nd Century 101-200...etc.

I tell ya, a lot happened from 1901-2000 and most of it had nothing to do with D-Day or WWII! :)

Cheers,

Wolfkin

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

Post by Alex F. » 03 Sep 2002 13:42

Maybe he meant every day of the 20th century AFTER D-Day? That seems more plausible.

I am of the school that thinks that if the Russians weren't assisted in the West when they were, they would have lost or at least been forced back from Germany... without Hitler putting his best equipment and divisions in the West to counter the other allies, the Russians would have been hard pressed to enter Germany, I think.

:)
Alex

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

Post by Wolfkin » 04 Sep 2002 21:44

Ok, that makes more sense!

But, on the other hand, one can say that the Red Army, which did take Berlin, had more significance on the latter part of the 20th century. Events that caused 45 years of the Cold War. The operations that the Red Army launched, such as Operation Bagration and others, could be considered just as important as D-Day. But, this is a matter of opinion. :)

Cheers,

Wolfkin

User avatar
Tiwaz
Member
Posts: 1946
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 10:36
Location: Finland

Post by Tiwaz » 05 Sep 2002 09:28

Alex F. wrote:Maybe he meant every day of the 20th century AFTER D-Day? That seems more plausible.

I am of the school that thinks that if the Russians weren't assisted in the West when they were, they would have lost or at least been forced back from Germany... without Hitler putting his best equipment and divisions in the West to counter the other allies, the Russians would have been hard pressed to enter Germany, I think.

:)
Alex


Umm... In general (general please) it was more the other way... Germans knew war was won or lost in the east so majority of forces were sent there. While there were elite units in west they were few like all troops in west compared to east.

James Patrick
Member
Posts: 453
Joined: 05 May 2002 16:14
Location: Saint Louis, Missouri, USA

Post by James Patrick » 05 Sep 2002 15:21

I though Hitler said the fate of Germany would be decided in the West and that is why he launched the Ardennes offensive. More troops were sent east because the front was bigger and there was more enemy. Weren't the German forces in the West more elite than those in the east ( as a percentage of the whole force)? Just off the top of my head 2nd, 11th, 21st, 116th Panzer Divisions, Panzer Lehr Div, 1st SS, 2nd SS, 9th SS, 10th SS, 12th SS Panzer Divs, 17th SS Pzr Gren Div all served a great deal in the West. Didn't most of the Fallshirmjager units, if not all of them, serve in the West also? I thought I read somewhere that the majority of Germany's King Tiger tanks were sent to the West Front.

User avatar
Tiwaz
Member
Posts: 1946
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 10:36
Location: Finland

Post by Tiwaz » 05 Sep 2002 15:56

If he thought like that he was bigger fool than I thought. Having 2/3 or 3/4 of your troops on one front getting their asses kicked and worrying about front which contained so much smaller amount of troops...

Had Germans defeated west and prevented forming another front they, at best, could hope for stalemate with rolling Red Army. Let's keep in mind that around -44 Red Army was battle hardened group with lots of pretty good tanks and strong artillery support.

User avatar
Daniel L
Member
Posts: 9117
Joined: 07 Sep 2002 00:46
Location: Sweden

Post by Daniel L » 17 Sep 2002 01:05

"Model moves on chart the 2nd SS Pz.Dv. from France to s' Hertogenbosch (closest forest to the last bridge oh Rheine) he said the SS had to cure the injuries of Ramelle... but the dialogue in movies is different as the languages."

Do you know how wrong you are here? Firstly it wasn't Model. Second he doesn't say Ramelle. Third the dialogues are not different- only the language/ translation.

There were no SS units in that area. Ramelle isn't a real town. What are you basing these statements on. it seems like you are making it up.

jwong
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 12:43
Location: Wheaton, MD

Re: Ending battle in Saving Private Ryan...historicaly accur

Post by jwong » 06 Oct 2002 08:55

Von Manstein wrote:Is the ending battle in "Saving Private Ryan" the real historicaly accurate battle of Romel or Romelle or however it is spelt? I mean it was 10-20 Amaricans against 1-2 Kompanies of infantry and heavy tanks and a few W-SS mixed in and they take almost all of them out. Unless that did happen and it was one of those amazing battles that I never heard about before in my life.

T.R.Searle :)


Actually there was an attack during the Operation Nordwind which the Germans launched in the Alsace region between France and Germany that is almost similar to what you see at the end of the movie SAVING PRIVATE RYAN.

If you go to the website http://www.angelfire.com/va2/worldwar2f ... ddie4.html

you will see the account of the US 94th infantry division being attacked by the 11th Panzer division.

On 1/17/1945, the US 94th infantry in the town of Tettingen, Germany, were hit by an artillery barrage, then the 11th Panzer division attacked the Americans with Panthers and after several hours of intense fighting the Americans manage to force the Germans to retreat. The Americans were able to destroy some Panther tanks with bazookas and satchel charges.

The director Steven Spielberg probably based the ending of the movie on that incident at Tettington.

Return to “Movies, games & other fiction”