How historically accurate was Saving Private Ryan?

[trafalgar]

I have nothing against SPR, in fact I loved it! But how accurate was it, really? When I watched the film I couldnt help but notice a few problems. A couple I noticed...

1) The scene where Miller and his men have to take out the MG42 nest under the radio tower. The Germans manning the gun absolutely unload on the GIs! In fact, a German Mg team back in WWII would never do such a thing because it spends too much ammunition too quickly, it causes the weapon to overheat very quickly, and there is less accuracy. Also I noticed that there were only a few Germans manning the MG. Realistically, back in those days, an Mg would have a team of riflemen guarding the flanks of the MG so such an attack like the one portayed in SPR would not happen!

2) The final battle when the German tanks enter teh destroyed French village. I was so amazed at how inaccurate that whole fight scene was! First of all, an armored vehicle would never enter a village, town or city without its soldiers first clearing the area beforehand! In SPR the tanks and armored vehicles are just plowin into the village before the troops and are getting BLOWN AWAY! Back in the 1940's this would have never ever ever happened!!!! For exactly the same reason that we see in SPR: theyre easy targets!

3) Jackson the sniper in the belltower with sniper rifles and 30 cal. Another inaccurate mistake! German armies would never enter a village, town or city without first neutralizing all vantage points such as BELLTOWERS which provide excellent positions for SNIPERS!!!! Bell towers were a MAJOR target for an army entering a city. Look at almost any WWII picture taken in an aftermatch of a city battle. If you see a church tower, bell tower or any other structure similar still standing I will be very amazed!

These were just a few mistakes I saw, I could probably find many more! Such as the whole final battle at the end of the movie is inaccurate. The Germans Miller and his men are fighting were nowhere near Normandy at that time!!!! Any comments?

[Gerdalm]

My opinion is that it was probably good entertainment, but definitely not historically accurate in all respects. Anyway it was much more credible and realistic than for example Band of Brothers.

[Tom Houlihan]

Anyway it was much more credible and realistic than for example Band of Brothers.

What makes you say that? While there was certainly some artistic license taken with some of BoB, the movie was based on a book. The men in the story are real. The story is real. It is from the perspective of those men of the 101st. As much as I liked SPR for the entertainment value, how can you back up your statement?

[varjag]

I thought the 'landing scenes' were very convincing. And for the first (?) time Hollywood dares to admit that G.I.'s gunned down surrendering Germans - a regular occurrence in war. Don't take the rest too seriously Trafalgar - it's a film - made to produce profits, not facts.

[Tom Houlihan]

- it's a film - made to produce profits, not facts.

The movie is based on a book, which is based on a number of interviews with veterans of Easy. They all lied?

[trafalgar]

Taking it too serious? What gave you the impression I was doing that? This thread was meant for nothing more than something to chat about. Like I said, "I loved the movie!" I just wanted to talk about how realistic people thought it was. And I was talking about SPR only, I did not mean the BOB series.

[Tracer]

he means "don't take the rest as historically factual" nothing more..

-Tracer

[szopen]

I thought the 'landing scenes' were very convincing. And for the first (?) time Hollywood dares to admit that G.I.'s gunned down surrendering Germans - a regular occurrence in war. Don't take the rest too seriously Trafalgar - it's a film - made to produce profits, not facts.

The landing scenes were based on Movie by author Ryan "The Longest Day" (the title in English may be different, i read it in Polish of course. Whole scenes are just cut from the book, which is good, because the book is not fiction.

And of course, the scenes were made by Polish operator, forgot his name (Kaminski?) Polish operators are amongst the best in the world, it's hte shame that they all sooner or later are escaping to greener pa$ture$ in Hollywood....

[Doppleganger]

2) The final battle when the German tanks enter teh destroyed French village. I was so amazed at how inaccurate that whole fight scene was! First of all, an armored vehicle would never enter a village, town or city without its soldiers first clearing the area beforehand! In SPR the tanks and armored vehicles are just plowin into the village before the troops and are getting BLOWN AWAY! Back in the 1940's this would have never ever ever happened!!!! For exactly the same reason that we see in SPR: theyre easy targets!

These were just a few mistakes I saw, I could probably find many more! Such as the whole final battle at the end of the movie is inaccurate. The Germans Miller and his men are fighting were nowhere near Normandy at that time!!!! Any comments?

The 'Tiger' tanks in the final battle looked more like T-34 chassis' with different turrets on. I was surprised that they hadn't made any attempt to mock up a convincing looking Tiger with the budget they had for the movie.

Also, the Heer machine gunner they let go comes back with an SS unit, part of 2nd SS Panzer Division 'Das Reich' perhaps. He would have rejoined a Heer unit I would have thought. Very much doubt he'd be re-recruited into an SS company as what appeared to happen.

But I loved the movie too.

[john1761]

Another thing that bothered me was when the americans attack the disabled Tiger they fire through the drivers vision slot. I thought that in action the armored glass would be in place.

[Jan-Hendrik]

SPR is pure fiction ! The first minutes , the landing , are fitting well , the rest is laughable "popcorn-cinema" !

"The longest day " based on the book by Cornelius Ryan , film & book are not always historically correct , but they were in most parts fitting to the historic events , so you could say "they were classics ! " .

I only wait for someone asking if "Pearl Harbour" was historically relevant ...


Jan-Hendirk

[trafalgar]

I found the whole wood-2X4-going-through-the-wall-and-discovering-the-Nazis scene a little unbelievable. I'm sure back in those days they all would have just opened up on eachother instead of having a mexican standoff.

[finnjaeger]

I agree with the idea of SPR being very entertaining, in fact i have it on tape, but i doubt the realism on it. For example in the last battle germans run sideways infront of ryan and cpt miller who are in a ditch and get shot / blasted away with mortar shells. Now, i am only junior sargeant with conscript army training behind me, but i would have never exposed myself, nor kept running like a live target if i would have been in similar situation like those germans. They were really asking to get killed. seems like the movie just needed herds of stupid germans running into fire.

[weiss]

Quote: "The 'Tiger' tanks in the final battle looked more like T-34 chassis' with different turrets on. I was surprised that they hadn't made any attempt to mock up a convincing looking Tiger with the budget they had for the movie."


For the love of God, the 'Tiger' tanks in SPR are as good as reproduction 'panzers' in a movie are EVER gonna' get. For a movie genre with countless films featuring postwar US tanks painted completely unrealisticly and given the obligatory german cross to make them 'panzers', the repro-'Tigers' used in the film were WORLDS away from the war movies that came before. The only movie to even try to match the accuracy of the mock 'Tiger' tanks in SPR before it came out was "Kelley's Heroes". I think this is because in that film they also used T-34 chassis as a basis and then built a realistic 'Tiger' hull and turret on top. Of course, then they painted them in some random camo job, but you cant win everytime. I'm not even a big fan of SPR, gut theres no reason for Tigerfans to nitpick since they did'nt have to go to the lengths they did anyways. Your average moviegoer would'nt be able to tell the difference between a real 'Tiger' and a M1 Abrams as long as both of them had German crosses painted on, so you have to give them props for even taking the time to build effective mock-ups!

[Doppleganger]

Quote: "The 'Tiger' tanks in the final battle looked more like T-34 chassis' with different turrets on. I was surprised that they hadn't made any attempt to mock up a convincing looking Tiger with the budget they had for the movie."


For the love of God, the 'Tiger' tanks in SPR are as good as reproduction 'panzers' in a movie are EVER gonna' get. For a movie genre with countless films featuring postwar US tanks painted completely unrealisticly and given the obligatory german cross to make them 'panzers', the repro-'Tigers' used in the film were WORLDS away from the war movies that came before. The only movie to even try to match the accuracy of the mock 'Tiger' tanks in SPR before it came out was "Kelley's Heroes". I think this is because in that film they also used T-34 chassis as a basis and then built a realistic 'Tiger' hull and turret on top. Of course, then they painted them in some random camo job, but you cant win everytime. I'm not even a big fan of SPR, gut theres no reason for Tigerfans to nitpick since they did'nt have to go to the lengths they did anyways. Your average moviegoer would'nt be able to tell the difference between a real 'Tiger' and a M1 Abrams as long as both of them had German crosses painted on, so you have to give them props for even taking the time to build effective mock-ups!

You know, no need to get so worked up my friend! I'm just answering a thread. I stated in my post that I loved SPR but the original poster was asking how accurate SPR was and I replied. It's not nit-picking at all. The inaccuracies of the movie didn't detract from my enjoyment at all but you know, they still had it in them to correct the inaccuracies and I am slightly puzzled as to why they didn't. Of course, those inaccuracies would go completely unnoticed by 95% of the people who watched the movie but Spielberg did strive to make SPR as realistic as possible and his research team let him down in that regard.