This topic is locked from further discussion.
RAVIRR
Seems can post his ranting but he is ...scum ...FFS ...
Many a true bloke then an he cheapens their AWFULDeaths as he lols ... THE CANT
Well, the whole d-day seen was making a mountain into an anthill. Only one guy was torn in half, nobody got their jaws bashied into their brains and it took 4-6 hours to get up to the darn people. Also nobody could run with their sand and mud filled backpacks. And the water and sand from the beach jammed almost everyone's rifle.jaydoughWhoa my grammar sucked then. Friggin' incoherent.
The Omaha Beach Landing scenes which starts Saving Private Ryan was quite accurate not just from the opinion of surviving veterans of that particular beach landing, but also from military historians who have studied the battle extensively. The war photographer's name whose hundreds of shots of the initial landing was ruined due to an overexcited technician was the famous Robert Capa who was part of the second wave to hit Omaha Beach.
If one was to nitpick the Omaha Beach landing then it would have to be the distance covered by the Rangers, 1st Infantry and 29th Infantry Divisions from surf to the shingles near the cliffs. In the film it looked like the distance was just somewhere in the lenght of a football field. It was actually much farther but since filming is forbidden on the original beaches the closest beach they could find that had the same type of topography was in Ireland and the distance wasn't the same.
The surf did run red in several places even with the mud kicked up during the previous landings and explosions. That's how many dead and wounded bled out on the surf not to mention those who were gathered in makeshift aid stations. It doesn't take much blood to turn water red now add in 2000+ dead and triple that wounded and that is a lot of blood.
[QUOTE="jaydough"]Well, the whole d-day seen was making a mountain into an anthill. Only one guy was torn in half, nobody got their jaws bashied into their brains and it took 4-6 hours to get up to the darn people. Also nobody could run with their sand and mud filled backpacks. And the water and sand from the beach jammed almost everyone's rifle.jaydoughWhoa my grammar sucked then. Friggin' incoherent. Regardless, you said then what I was going to say now, that the events were exaggerated. Of course there were explosions, and machinegun fire, but it wasn't as action packed as the movie would have you believe. If any one of the people in this thread has seen footage you'd see that, except for when there were machine guns firing, the scene looked almost calm. Allies were busy hiding in holes for 6 hours, and German machine guns would have melted with all the firing they did (if we're to believe they did 6 hours of what was shown in the movie).
At it's most action packed perhaps the movie would come close, but it wasn't a 15 minute operation. They landed in the early morning and sat there in the dark and cold under sporadic (right word?) machine gun fire for hours becfore they finally took the beach.
Note: I don;t know exact numbers, so "6 hours" could be way off. My point still stands though.
Double note: footage I've seen may not be from the first landing.
It's very, very exaggerated....No allied commander would send his troops to a death trap like that.jointedWait, jointed.... your back? And, I felt it was pretty realistic, I have seen pictures and watched the movie, I think it looks realistic
edit: I didn't realize the age of the thread
Oh man what an entertaining thread. Man the jointed guy was some kind of special. I mean what fool goes against historians, veterans, stats, and all logic and reason.
Makes me sad that there are people that thick in this world who think they know something but don't know a damn thing.
Whoa my grammar sucked then. Friggin' incoherent. Regardless, you said then what I was going to say now, that the events were exaggerated. Of course there were explosions, and machinegun fire, but it wasn't as action packed as the movie would have you believe. If any one of the people in this thread has seen footage you'd see that, except for when there were machine guns firing, the scene looked almost calm. Allies were busy hiding in holes for 6 hours, and German machine guns would have melted with all the firing they did (if we're to believe they did 6 hours of what was shown in the movie).[QUOTE="jaydough"][QUOTE="jaydough"]Well, the whole d-day seen was making a mountain into an anthill. Only one guy was torn in half, nobody got their jaws bashied into their brains and it took 4-6 hours to get up to the darn people. Also nobody could run with their sand and mud filled backpacks. And the water and sand from the beach jammed almost everyone's rifle.DigitalExile
At it's most action packed perhaps the movie would come close, but it wasn't a 15 minute operation. They landed in the early morning and sat there in the dark and cold under sporadic (right word?) machine gun fire for hours becfore they finally took the beach.
Note: I don;t know exact numbers, so "6 hours" could be way off. My point still stands though.
Double note: footage I've seen may not be from the first landing.
Film footage that people always see in documentaries weren't of the first couple hours, but the later waves. There was a reason for this and that's most didn't want to be in the initial landings. A few war photographers like Capa volunteered to be in the initial waves since their equipment wasn't as bulky which would allow them to move faster into cover than a film cameraman could.
Film didn't show how long it took to take the bluffs overlooking Omaha but then the film may have been condensed at that sequence. The Landing and the attack on the defensive position on the bluffs and beyond took pretty much most of the day and the following. The breakthrough created by Miller and his group was creative license to show just how other units made their own breakthroughs in the other sectors on Omaha Beach. Two films which had D-Day Landing sequence at Omaha beach which better showed this are The Longest Day and The Big Red One. Spielberg's film just upped the realism of the combat situation and how it wasn't as antiseptic and clean a battle as past WW2 films have shown them to be.
MG36 and MG42 machine guns used by the German defenders at Omaha wouldn't have melted even with the constant firing. This is fact since Germans designed both guns to have their barrels replaced quite easily between firings to keep them from overheating. Plus, the machine guns wouldn't have been used until the landing force were at a certain point on the beach to maximize it's killing capacity. Those landing crafts which were hit by machine gun fire most likely at a stretch of Omaha near Point-du-Hoc where the distance between surf and bluffs were not as far as other sections of Omaha Beach.
Oh man what an entertaining thread. Man the jointed guy was some kind of special. I mean what fool goes against historians, veterans, stats, and all logic and reason.
Makes me sad that there are people that thick in this world who think they know something but don't know a damn thing.
jointed's way or the highwayye I remember they wore talkign about this on history channel only thing that was'nt completly accurate was the gun fire sounds
kemar7856
That and the absence of the smell of cordite, fire, blood and loosed bowels.
For those who still think that sequence in Spielberg's film is not authentic should read this first-hand account from someone who actually was part of the first wave at Omaha Beach.
First Wave at Omaha Beach by S.L.A. Marshall (ret.)
i've been following thsi debate for 11 pages. it's a good one and Saving Private Ryan is a kickass movie in my opinion.
but i'd have to agree with Jointed on this, he provided a great picture clearly showing that soldiers weren't slaughtered as soon as the ramps were down as they basically were in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. it's not too realistic in my opinion
[QUOTE="Infinite-Zr0"]I just noticed that this thread was created in 2007 :|RadBooley
Hah, it's fun to click through the users who posted in it early on and see how many were banned...
On topic, who thinks the opening of SAVING Private ryan is realistic. In my opinion, it's too much death
[QUOTE="RadBooley"]
[QUOTE="Infinite-Zr0"]I just noticed that this thread was created in 2007 :|HistoricalSD
Hah, it's fun to click through the users who posted in it early on and see how many were banned...
On topic, who thinks the opening of SAVING Private ryan is realistic. In my opinion, it's too much death
Seemed pretty realistic to me when I saw it.
War is nasty. I thought the film captured that perfectly.
Omaha was the easiest beach to take, Americans had it easy. Brits and the Canadians had to take the hardest beaches which they did.Should Americans be given credit? Certainly yes, do they deserve to say they were the ones that won the war for everyone else? Hell no. The attack was missing blimps (As i recall from the movie). Blimps were tied to the fleet with large, think metal cording to prevent enemy craft from attacking the troops on the beach or the fleets themselves. (its worked how aircraft would easily lose their wings by flying through the metal cords which were hard to see). Bunkers, a lot of them were deep in the ground, so it would be hard to do any real damage to them. Even to hit small, hidden bunkerss. (Yes i know there was a giant bunker in the movie). As well, there were not laser guided bombs, this was the early 40's we are talking about. So to hit a target was very tough, but it was easy to destory most of an entire area.Dr_Brocoli
So - in your opinion - the Saving Private Ryan opening is...?
[QUOTE="HistoricalSD"]
[QUOTE="RadBooley"]
Hah, it's fun to click through the users who posted in it early on and see how many were banned...
RadBooley
On topic, who thinks the opening of SAVING Private ryan is realistic. In my opinion, it's too much death
Seemed pretty realistic to me when I saw it.
War is nasty. I thought the film captured that perfectly.
in my opinion, it's not realistic. there is a real photo of first wave at omaha, decribing how all the sopldiers went out of the boats heading for the beach - no one dead.
in SAVING private ryan, as soon as the ramps were down, germans started fire immediately and there was like 100 % almost chance you'd be hit.
How do you guys know the movie is realistic, when you weren't there for the actual event? What the hell? Is everyone living in imagination land these days? :?Hugh-G-RectionThere are photographs, eye witness accounts, communication transcripts and battle reports and plans, i think that is enough to go by
[QUOTE="Hugh-G-Rection"]How do you guys know the movie is realistic, when you weren't there for the actual event? What the hell? Is everyone living in imagination land these days? :?markop2003There are photographs, eye witness accounts, communication transcripts and battle reports and plans, i think that is enough to go by The photographs taken contradicts the movie though.
[QUOTE="markop2003"][QUOTE="Hugh-G-Rection"]How do you guys know the movie is realistic, when you weren't there for the actual event? What the hell? Is everyone living in imagination land these days? :?jointedThere are photographs, eye witness accounts, communication transcripts and battle reports and plans, i think that is enough to go by The photographs taken contradicts the movie though. True, i was just citing them as a source of evidence :)
[QUOTE="markop2003"][QUOTE="jointed"] True, i was just citing them as a source of evidence :)Hugh-G-RectionIf they contradict the film, then they are not evidence to support the argument of accuracy. Damn. :roll: The argument has 2 sides, i never said it was realistic...
The basic idea is real but of course it's had a bit more drama added also there was no sign of the floating tanksmarkop2003
[QUOTE="markop2003"][QUOTE="Hugh-G-Rection"]How do you guys know the movie is realistic, when you weren't there for the actual event? What the hell? Is everyone living in imagination land these days? :?jointedThere are photographs, eye witness accounts, communication transcripts and battle reports and plans, i think that is enough to go by The photographs taken contradicts the movie though.
You can't really base the whole landing off of 1 photograph though.
The photographs taken contradicts the movie though.[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="markop2003"] There are photographs, eye witness accounts, communication transcripts and battle reports and plans, i think that is enough to go bybladeeagle
You can't really base the whole landing off of 1 photograph though.
Of course not, but I can compare the first scene with a photo showing the exact same event and conclude that the film is not entirely accurate, and is in fact a tad exaggerated.The photographs taken contradicts the movie though.[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="markop2003"] There are photographs, eye witness accounts, communication transcripts and battle reports and plans, i think that is enough to go bybladeeagle
You can't really base the whole landing off of 1 photograph though.
How about 30ish?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment