Jump to content
GT1070

The Battle of the Bulge Movie 1965

Recommended Posts

It doesn't matter how bad the Battle of the Bulge movie was...it has the PanzerLeid in it, thus all is forgiven.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Los said:

It doesn't matter how bad the Battle of the Bulge movie was...it has the PanzerLeid in it, thus all is forgiven.

 

No, it has only the 1st verse in repeat... which sux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TSe419E said:

It sucked that it was only the first verse but the upbeat tempo of this version is great.

nah... ya know, this song is with me since basic Training. Hearing this movi version makes my toe nails roll up... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL...look at the young frightening Hitler Youth given access to tanks...horrible movie but so is Top Gun and I keep watching both...sigh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I would be carefull with claiming that Tiger could lay fire more accurately, especially considering that in general, WWII german tanks crews had rather poor situational awareness, and visibility from the inside was also quiet poor compared to, for example M4 or M26, due to how many periscopes were avaiable for crews, including gunner."

 

I dont understand your position? 

 

Others should be careful about making statements, while You are making sweeping statements and generalizations and speaking as if your sentiments are infallible. This despite factual basis and actual references? 

 

Many German Tanks, but not so much with the different Sturmgeschutz, had better situational awareness than many other, and particularly the Soviet, among other things because THEY ALL HAD RADIOS. They also had better visibility than many british tanks.

 

As for the trackrecord of Tigers vs. American tanks then the north african campaign was where american crews met the Tigers, and got more than a bloody nose initially.

The nonsense about Tigers not being a problem, aside from being a gross oversimplification and generalization, simply isnt true. Which Michael Wittman among others clearly demonstrated.

 

As for the claim that the Shermans were much better than their rumour, and with all due respect, then I dont really care what Nicholas Moran says, inasmuch as he doesnt states his sources. And also I dont belive he is right.

 

THIS is to me much more interesting AND paints the picture pretty well:

 

 

Or this:

 

 

The Sherman was a Great tank. But certainly not a BETTER tank than the Pzkpfw VI or V. But there was a lot more of them which is a quality in itself. And the 76mm M1 as far as I know, wasnt fielded in a Sherman until mid 1944.

 

I think there are nuances that makes generalizations a challenge to make.

Edited by Nike-Ajax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mower said:

LOL...look at the young frightening Hitler Youth given access to tanks...horrible movie but so is Top Gun and I keep watching both...sigh

Well, I think that the age of these actors was a match for the tank crews at the time (which were neither Hitler Jugend nor Volkssturm, but regular Wehrmacht units and then of course the Waffen-SS). It is important to realize that for the Battle of the Bulge basically the best units were assembled that could be spared on any other front line, and not second or third degree. Of course, given the circumstances, the Wehrmacht had to deal with deficits everywhere. Still it is important to make a distiction between "Volkssturm" (which basically consisted of children and pensioners), and the "Volksdivision" units (which were still comprised of fighting age males with WWI experience, just that these were drawn from the factories at the expense of industrial output). So, VDs were not first line and as such limited in their offensive capabilities, but still leaps and bounds more capable than the rag tag units cobbled together in sheer desparation as the Volkssturm.

 

The Ardennes Offensive was Hitler's final gambit move to try and split the Allies in the West. It may never had great chances of success, but they were distinctly non-zero. What's more, doing nothing would definitely have sealed Hitler's fate. So this was his last chance to turn the tide. Also, unlike the film suggests, the Battle of the Bulge wasn't over by the end of '44, it actually dragged well on until mid February when the Soviets launcherd their major offensive into Germany, forcing the Wehrmacht to cease all offensive operations in the West.

 

Check out Christer Bergström's book "The Ardennes 1944-1945" to get a comprehensive overview of the operation. Took me all summer to go through it last year, but I found it a very well rersearched tome that also put elements like OP Bodenplatte into proper perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's curious that the Germans thought an extended spearhead taking Antwerp would end the Western  Allies' fighting capability.  It would only have been a temporary setback IMHO as rail capacity was quickly being restored in France and the extended flanks of the spearhead would surely have been vulnerable to counter attack, not to mention the maelstrom of Allied tactical air.

Edited by Mower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i've seen roughly similar figures from other sources, but most of the western allied tank losses were not accounted for directly by tanks- most losses by gun fire take the majority, but are divided up between tanks and the support arms such as artillery, self propelled guns and towed anti tank guns, again which often seem to be overlooked in the amount of casualities they were able to inflict.

 

If this claim is true, then that seems to indicate losses are primarily from the unseen threat rather than face to face confrontation, this is what makes the claim that shermans were capable of taking on german tanks face to face rather regularly unlikely in most cases, since in addition to the enemy tanks themselves, which aren't going to simply allow sherman tanks to approach frontally to have a chance, there's also other supporting units taking shots at the allied tanks as they try to close the distance or outflank the german tanks

 

Quote

60% of gunfire hits were recorded to be hit from the side. 37% of hits were from the front and 3% were done from the rear.

 

 

 

http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/12/26/on-allied-tank-casualties-in-the-eto/

Edited by Captain_Colossus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mower said:

It's curious that the Germans thought an extended spearhead taking Antwerp would end the Western Allies' fighting capability.  It would only have been a temporary setback IMHO as rail capacity was quickly being restored in France and the extended flanks of the spearhead would surely have been vulnerable to counter attack, not to mention the maelstrom of Allied tactical air.

It's certainly debatable if the offensive could ever have achieved its strategic aim but Nazi Germany's options were pretty limited at the time already. From Hitler's perspective I guess it was "worth a shot" and certainly better than the alternative, to curl up in a fetal position and wait for the Russians to ring the doorbell of the Reichskanzlei.

 

It cannot be overstated however that the Allies were not only be caught absolutely flat-footed, but that they got a handle on the situation only when the weather permitted air support. And even then they only managed to contain the bulge; they never demonstrated the capability to cut it off in a decisive manner - until the Soviets launched their next major offensive in the east and the Wehrmacht withdrew much of the remaining forces in the sector. Allied losses in the Ardennes were staggering, rivalling those of the D-Day landings (though spread out over a longer time, of course), and so well hidden from the public that even the best efforts of historians to the day have only unearthed spotty records.

 

Even with the limited success of the offensive cracks between Montgomery and the US generals already became visible to the public; I don't think that this made Churchill waver, so the strategic commitment of Britain is undisputed. Still - who knows what kind of a dynamic an actual capture of Antwerp would have set off, with the British army being cut off both from US allies and from supplies through France, the spectre of a second Dunkirk looming.

The assault through the Ardennes certainly suffered from a number of factors that weren't adequately covered by the German plans, most notably the overstrained road network that simply couldn't cope with the necessary flow of supplies, particularly not at day time under air threat. Also, the fact that the offensive depended extremely on favorable weather conditions, and the Soviets not attacking while it went on because Germany had only the capability to stabilize either front, not both. Finally, the operational ineptitude of the Waffen-SS that was all fanaticism, bling, and arrogance, combined with no brains.

 

Clearly the Luftwaffe was incapable of threatening Allied airpower, to that extent I fully agree with you. And a second Bodenplatte couldn't have been pulled off either. But when you consider the actual pace with which Allied counterattacks actually did happen one can actually question the Allies' capability to threaten the spearhead's flanks. US 3rd army from the south barely managed to pry open a small corridor to Bastogne but essentially failed to make much progress anywhere else, much to Patton's frustration, particularly when considering that they went up against heavily depleted Wehrmacht units like 5 FjD, or second rate troops (the Volksgrenadierdivisions) with but a handful of StuGs. In the north, Monty didn't fare any better.

 

To that extent the book of Bergström was actually an eye opener to me. I'm no WW2 expert so this book may not hold major surprises for those who studied the Battle of the Bulge through other sources. But clearly the 1965 movie (just as well as five years later the "Patton" film) reflects the limited understanding of what actually happened at the time, combined with euphemistic recollections from Gen. Bradley bordering on the untrue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be a good place to start a rumor about a WW2 Steel beasts mod. This guy make good tactical vids using Combat mission.

 

Edited by Los

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well made video.

 

But in reality the Royal tiger was nothing more then a white elephant to heavy fuel thirsty underpowered and a nice big juicey target 

For allied Ground attack aircraft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My grandfather, Col. Robert James Cook, fought at the Battle of the Bulge. He was one of the most amiable men you'd ever want to meet. If he couldn't bring a smile to your face, nothing could. For his entire life he was devoted to his wife, Veronica, who also served as an army nurse and who tended to the victims of the Hiroshima bombings.

 

Only he and God know what horrors he ... they both had witnessed. But you wouldn't know it if you had met them. Even so, the only thing that he couldn't bear was parting with his beloved wife.

 

God damn, I miss them.

 

Rest in peace, Robert and Veronica Cook.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2018 at 4:21 PM, Damian90 said:

And of course I do not imply all these 3 Tigers were taken out from the front, I only say, in the context of the "Fury" that the Tiger there, would be shot dead by 2 76mm M1 gun armed M4's, at this specific tactical situation and range.

I disagree. In the brief shot of the loader loading the 76mm Gun M1A1C/M1A2, you can see what appears to be M62 APC or M93 HVAP being rammed into the breech. Given how rare HVAP ammunition was, and the fact that the TC commands to load AP, it's more likely M62 APC. When the 76's hit the Tiger, they are firing at about 600m (according to the estimation given by the Tiger TC), and they are approaching the Tiger's front plate from about a 20-30 degree angle (based on the fire commands given by the Tiger commander and the wide shot of Fury and the 75 splitting up). Under these conditions, the 76mm M62 has about a 50% chance of penetrating 96mm of armor in good conditions, given how American penetration tests were based on a 50% successful perforation rate. That's just short of perforating approx. 102mm of RHA that is possibly face hardened.

 

On a side note, the commander commanding the loader to load "AP" is technically incorrect, it was referred to as "Shot" at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...