Thoughts on SPR

[Psycho]

Back to tactics, the oft-criticized German tank-infantry tactics are the most discussed. Again as has been pointed out here the Germans did put in a two-pronged attack and had virtually wiped out Cpt. Miller’s small command, not bad. How many of us as Allied defenders would have tossed in our dice before that scenario’s last CCPh? The armoured assault down the main street without house clearing is a valid tactic from more than one perspective. As war-gamers and students of history we could come up with a few reasons for such an assault, in ASL terms I for one have been surprised by HIP units in the past and will probably continue be knowing the savvy cats I have to deal with in my ASL opponents. Eh Jim? Those SS and Tigers could have time constraints to deal with, lack of intelligence, that SPW250 recce unit didn’t get their report out in time thanks to Ryan and his trusty Baz44 I guess, or plain bad leadership. How often has that happened in war?

That seems to be one of the big problems that comes up and I mentioned that it might be possible they had a bad leader. Critics say not possible in an elite SS unit. I say that there were so many dead vets by now that even the elite units (including Waffen SS) had inexperienced troops during 1944-45. Usual response: "Why don't you learn something before you post you stupid wanker." Even mentioned the Germans might be pressed for time to take the bridge. More stupid American remarks, blah, blah, blah...

The Monty bashing is forgivable. Monty was not popular in the eyes of the Americans.

Another big problem which is apparently Spielberg's way of bashing the Brits. We mention that it was probably realistic for the Americans to talk about him like that but it doesn't make Monty a bad general. Then the attacks begin on Patton & Ike, blah, blah, blah...

[Vinnie]

I'm confused by the "elite SS unit thing". ASdmittedly my recollection of the film is imperfect but where is this elite thing coming from? If I recall correctly it's the bridge defenders who talk of facing an elite unit. Just as every gun is an 88 and each tank is a tiger so every unit you face is elite. The action at the end takes place on D+3? or there abotus. Few "battle-hardened" units would have reached the area by that time. Most of the German forces would have had some experience but were mainly composed of units that had been resting/refitting or on garrison duty for some time. As such some "bonehead" tactics would be expected but as an infantryman in the field I certainly would not want to rely on such.

Monty-bashing. Hmmmm I don't feel tht this is really present to a great extent in this film mainly due to the lack of UK forces. The only UK forces that should ppear in this film but don't are the RN units who ran the troops into the beach. Apart form the occasional liason officer why would the Rangers have encountered any? Certainkly the US forcwes felt that Monty had an overwhelming effect on the planning of D-day - remember most US forces felt they could have gone in 1943. UK forces have fond memories of Monty because he gave them their pride back. He may not have been a master tactician (in fact I believe that as a stategist he was over-rated and far too overcautious) but his men loved him. he got his troops to fight for him not justy the country. Many elements of what Patton did are present in Monty's actions. That having been said if you try creat a cult of personality (which Monty assuredly did) Then you have an inevitable backlash from those excluded from the party - in this instance the US forces.
I'd be interested in the view of Canadians and ANZC foks with regard to Monty. The Brits will always dfend him and the Yanks always denigrate him. How about those on the fringes of the commonwealth? What are your views of him.

Finally a point with regard to marketing. Spielberg sells his films to an American audience which is generally ill-educated abiout the subject matter (No this is not a US bash obviously you guys are educated about it but frankly we are too small a congress to support a big budget movie). As such he has to pitch his sales in terms that the average guy can understand. This is why it's dangerous. Most people just accept what they are told without examining it critically. Education and information is the enemyu of totalitarianism. Does SPR educate? I'd say yes. Ignore the new techniques used in filming and look at gthe basic story and it is not a "glorious" war story. It shows human frailty and dishonour. It shows incompetance and selfishness. it shows extreme heroism and cowardice. I#'d say that overall it is a good film.
Besides it's got a Marder.

[Steiner!]

<<I'm confused by the "elite SS unit thing". ASdmittedly my recollection of the film is imperfect but where is this elite thing coming from?>>

Vinnie,

The unit attacking the town and bridge at the end is an SS unit...thus Elite.

[Tater]

Finally a point with regard to marketing. Spielberg sells his films to an American audience which is generally ill-educated abiout the subject matter (No this is not a US bash obviously you guys are educated about it but frankly we are too small a congress to support a big budget movie).

I would say that the average American audience is no more/less
ill-/mis-educated on the subject of WWII than any Euro audience.

[Psycho]

I'm confused by the "elite SS unit thing".

When they find Ryan after blowing up the halftrack the guy says it was a recon probe from 2nd SS. That is one of the complaints because 2 SS would not be in the area yet.

Monty-bashing. Hmmmm I don't feel tht this is really present to a great extent in this film mainly due to the lack of UK forces.

Usual complaint is that they don't show any UK soldiers and the only mention of this is the Monty comment. This usually leads to the comment that all US warmovies only show us so we think we won the war singlehandedly.

Finally a point with regard to marketing. Spielberg sells his films to an American audience which is generally ill-educated abiout the subject matter (No this is not a US bash obviously you guys are educated about it but frankly we are too small a congress to support a big budget movie).

The average person that doesn't know much about the war (or care) will obviously be uneducated about the subject. However, the critics on the imdb board (mostly Europeans) tend to call all of us lazy ignorant Yanks. When some of us point out that we do know something of the subject it still degenerates into wars over other details because we are still not as intelligent because Bush is president, war in Iraq, we think the War of 1812 was a stalemate...
Sometimes it is entertaining to read them and sometimes it just gets incredibly ignorant. Of course sometimes you could blame a couple of us for starting it. If someone asks an innocent question about A Bridge Too Far we might start complaining about ABTF not mentioning the Brazilian Division or the Sri Lankan construction battalion and then the war of words begins anew.

[Tater]

Usual complaint is that they don't show any UK soldiers and the only mention of this is the Monty comment. This usually leads to the comment that all US warmovies only show us so we think we won the war singlehandedly.

How silly! Everyone knows that it was Hitler that single-handedly defeated Germany. One must admit it was an amazing feat...for one man to utterly decimate an entire nation in about 6 years.

[Swiftandsure]

How silly! Everyone knows that it was Hitler that single-handedly defeated Germany. One must admit it was an amazing feat...for one man to utterly decimate an entire nation in about 6 years.

How true !
Now, does this mean the Allies didn't need good leadership to beat the Germans ?

[Oliver]

Re: 2nd SS

Well, we could give the writer credit and assume that he intended the *soldiers* to be mistaken. As in: "Rumors are that the 2nd SS is on its way up here to Normandy. These guys we just waxed have SS runes on their collars. Therefore, they must be 2nd SS."

Happened all the time. Even guys who were actually there got the details wrong -- as anyone knows from the numerous times German tanks were inflated to Tigers and Panthers. Maybe this is one thing they got right in SPR: the confusion of war.

There were SS units in the Carentan area -- 17th, as I recall -- but I would not consider them elite as far as their fighting performance goes. The 101st fought them, too. Whether the timing is right for the movie is debatable, b/c I think the dates were fudged a bit to tell a good story. Time also has a strange quality of blending together in war anyway.

From everything I've read, SPR gets the *experience* of war right. If it didn't move us, I doubt we'd be talking about it. A good counterpoint in this regard would be "Windtalkers," for example.

[Chas Argent]

The 17th SS Panzer Grenadier Divison "Götz von Berlichingen" was moved to the Carentan area after the invasion. They only had assault guns (StuG IIIs), however, not Tigers and Marders.

On a side note, 42% of the division's troops were born in 1926; that makes them 17 or 18 years old at the time of the invasion.

[Psycho]

Happened all the time. Even guys who were actually there got the details wrong -- as anyone knows from the numerous times German tanks were inflated to Tigers and Panthers. Maybe this is one thing they got right in SPR: the confusion of war.

I remember Charles Sharp talking about running some miniatures games and he said when one of the players spotted an enemy tank he would automatically put a Sherman/Tiger/T34 on the board until definite id could be made.