Bloopers


Anybody notice that when Henry Fonda's character takes an M1 to shoot Colonel Hessler at the bridge that there is no rear peep sight on the rifle? No wonder he missed the german commander!

Despite a lot of historical inaccuracies and shortcomings I still like the movie although not as much when I first saw it back in the early 70's.

My friend Sam Garfield who fought with the 75th infantry division in this battle said that the movie captured the reality of the infantry having to stop Tigers and how ineffecive the Shermans really were.

reply

[deleted]

True. That was one of many shortcomings that the filmmakers weren't able to make up for. Many of the Tiger IIs grounded to a halt from lack of fuel and mechanical failure.

I think what my friend was referring to was the inability of the 75mm round to knock out a Tiger even at relatively close range. He said that they had used a 105 howitzer on a captured tiger and it wouldn't even penetrate at point-blank range.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

The quality control of German equipment suffered as the war progressed; some of the Panthers in the first group produced would catch fire just while being driven around.

for hate's sake, I spit my last breath on thee! -Khan-

reply

[deleted]

Gosh it must have been 'fun' for Soviet infantry to engage tanks; no bazookas, no PIATs, no panzerfausts/panzerkreks......

Using a lighter after pouring fuel on a tank? Sounds about as safe as climbing on a tank to rip off the engine grill before tossing in a grenade.

for hate's sake, I spit my last breath on thee! -Khan-

reply

[deleted]

Hi, I think the heavy tank destroyer you are referring to is the Ferdinand and not the Elefant. As far as my own knowledge goes, it was found at Kursk that the lack of a machine gun for self-protection made the Ferdinand highly vulnerable to determined infantry attack. So later it was fitted with a machine gun in the hull and renamed the Elefant.

reply

Since we're already way off topic...

re the Ferdinand/Elefant-- I think the main thing the Germans "found" with it at Kursk is that you need to decide what a weapon is really for before committing it to combat. Putting the 8.8cm L/71 gun on a vehicle suggests you want to use it as a long-range tank-destroyer. Putting massive armor on it suggests you want to use it in the vanguard of the assault. Slow speed and no defensive weaponry is strong evidence for the long-range tank-destroyer concept. Yet they used it at Kursk -- no doubt because of it's armor -- as a lead "breakthrough" vehicle. As the supporting panzergrenadiers got shot away, they were left crawling around alone, infantry fodder. Basically what you had in that vehicle was an attempt to combine the "Nashorn" with a heavy Sturmgeschutz. They got none of the best qualities of either, and that was worsened by local commanders who apparently didn't know or care how to make best use of the weapon.




reply

[deleted]

Okay, I don't want to turn this into a debate that is over facts (that can be easily verified) and not differences in opinion, and moreover our posts (as pointed out by another user) had already diverged quite substantially from the original topic. But my original post was essentially correct. The Ferdinand and Elefant (correct spelling) were essentially the same vehicle but the Elefant did have a machine gun in the hull. If in doubt, check out pictures of the Ferdinand and the Elefant in military books, or various sites in the Internet. Or if you are a scale model builder, you can build models of either or both of them from brands like Tamiya or Dragon. You'll see the difference.

I am not into the origins of Christian names, but I doubt that elephant (the animal) is the English translation of "Ferdinand". In fact the original vehicle (that first appeared at Kursk and didn't have a machine gun) was named after Ferdinand Porsche, who later was also the designer of the Porsche turret (in contrast to the Henschel turret) of the Tiger II tanks.

To repeat, the Elefant did have a machine gun in the hull.

reply

[deleted]

Okay, quite interesting discussion here. I did a quick search with Googles and the below are all from independent sources, giving essentially the same information:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz6.htm

http://www.panzerworld.net/facts.html

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4635/tanks/elefant/elefant.htm

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger-variations.htm

I don't know if you are a scale model builder, but nowadays scale models are accurate down to the level of camouflage schemes and unit markings and numbers. Briefly, they won't put in a gun that wasn't there or the brand will go out of business overnight.

Picture of an Elefant with a hull machine gun (click on image to enlarge):

http://www.dragonmodelsusa.com/dmlusa/prodd.asp?pid=DRR60023

Picture of a Ferdinand without any machine gun:

http://www.dragonmodelsusa.com/dmlusa/prodd.asp?pid=DRR60024

No disrespect for the History Channel here. It is useful in drawing people's interests into topics they don't know much originally. But perhaps for that reason it tends to sensationalize things a bit and is not particulary known for accuracy down to the details. As for the book from which you cited, the author obviously used the terms Ferdinand and Elefant interchangeably. You would need a source that mentions the distinction (or lack of it) explicitly. What he said about the Elefant/Ferdinand (lack of MG) was true at the time of Kursk. But later, the Elefant did have a hull machine gun. (To be fair to the author, in the paragraph you cited, he never said explicitly that the gun was not added later).

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

At this movie Battle of the bulge they could use the M24 as PZ IV it's the same size and with proper camouflage and side armour it'd look like one.But using M48 as Tigers that's ridiculous.THeir looks aren't even close.But i believe 90% of the watchers didn't know about it.I could never have this movie in my library.

reply

Artillery isn't meant to "penetrate" armor. It IS intended to hit from above as it falls to a target and fracture or destroy the lighter armor on the top of a tank. Tanks have their heaviest armor at the fron and often around the turret. The armor is thinner along the sides and usually even lighter in the rear. The thinnest armor is the "deck" plating, or the top of the vehicle because most other tanks can't hit then there. Most of the Pzkw VIB's destroyed during the Ardennes Offensive were destroyed from the air by fighter bombers that could take advantage of that thinner deck plating deficiency.

The tanks in the movie were supposed to be Tiger II's or "Konigstigers" (Pzkw VIB). The Werhmacht had 332 Pzkw VIB's available for the "Ardennes Offensive", (The Battle Of The Bulge), plus numerous other types.

The "Panther Pzkw V" was in very limited supply on the western front and only comprised a very small part of the German force. Most Panthers were in use on the eastern front, being used against Soviet T-34 series vehicles, which is what they had been designed to be used for. The OKW (German High Command) saw very little sense in using the Panther against Anglo units because even the Pzkw IV Panzer was still very effective against all armor types deployed by the Americans or the British. The Pzkw IV Panzer was equipped with a long bore 75mm main gun that was superior to most allied tanks, and was in fact, the primary German tank of the entire war. It went through numerous upgrades and modifications and was also the basis vehicle for several other German weapon systems including several self propelled artillery types.

The Pzkw VIB's used in the Ardennes were veiwed as a sort of super weapon because of their overwhelming superiority to allied units. They were originally intened for use in the East but destroyed rail transportation systems prevented their deployment.

A 105mm AP round to the front of a Pzkw VIB would NOT have penetrated the armor. A APDS round of the extreme late war or later might have. At the time of the Ardennes offensive, the Allied command had no common round in inventory that was effective against the PzKw VIB. With the exception of some late war modifications, most Shermans were equipped with a 75mm main gun firing AP (armor peircing) rounds. The only effective place on a Pzkw VIB for a 75mm round to hit would have been the rear of the vehicle.

As for the Soviet T-34, either the /76 or the /85 models, being superior to "Panthers", this is not fact. The T-34 models were superior to the PzKw IV's and previous German armor, but not the Panther (Pzkw V). Although it was an excellent weapons system for the period, it was surpassed by the Pzkw V Panther. In fact, the panther was designed from experiences and examples learned from the T-34 series, and according to both United Kingdom and US Army sources on the subject, the Pzkw V "Panther" was the "Best" (as rated by Janes) tank design in exsistance until 1957! (look it up in the US Army Armor Command Archives) That included all post war designs up to, but not including the M-48/60 series and the Brittish Cheiftain series, which both took examples from both the T-34 and Pzkw V Panther series.

Just a little history. Sorry if I got to detailed.

James

reply

i watched this on history television most if not all of the tanks in the movie were left overs from ww2

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I assumed they were using something on the order of the 1939-1940 antitank rifle that some countries had.

Guess what! I've got a fever, and the only prescription is MORE COWBELL! -Bruce Dickinson-

reply

If you meant that you thought U.S. troops would have been using AT rifles in Dec. '44, -- no. They were a World War I development, made to counter the sheet metal armor of the earliest tanks. By the time of the "Bulge" battle, no Western Ally was still using them. To my knowledge, the U.S. Army never used them anywhere near the WWII years, and most definitely not by 1944.

Even rifle grenades, which is what "Wolenski's" men were trying to use, and even with the light HEAT warheads available near the end of the war, would have been practically useless against oncoming heavy tanks, as they were trying in the movie.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

(this is for dagget05, the threading/responding looks like it's getting confused...)

sorry, I know it's been 6 months since you posted, but I just looked in here tonight.

You're right about the weather in the movie; and others have commented on the deserts of Spain versus the snowy woods of Belgium. But, I wouldn't say that the Germans were "almost sucessful" anyway, Allied Air or no. They were confounded on the ground by unexpectedly stiff resistance and lethal confusion caused by bad maps of areas they had controlled only months prior (abetted by "helpful" Belgian civilians misdirecting them at every turn); and at higher levels, a total misunderstanding of the Allied command flexibility which allowed Eisenhower and his subordinates to react "on the fly" and do it well, without consulting London and Washington -- something Hitler at the best of times would never have allowed when his armies were faced with the unexpected, and certainly not in his (more-)paranoid days of late '44.

I know you wanted to get back to bloopers from the movie, and I dragged us back to historical technicality. But re the blue sky: I think that even if nary a P-47, Typhoon, nor tac bomber had ever flown in the whole month of December over Belgium, the Germans never would have reached the Meuse, let alone Antwerp. All that technical ground stuff that guys in this thread are talking about was just too plentiful on the Allied side, and lacking on the German side, for that to happen.

--best:

RM.

reply