MovieChat Forums > The Eagle Has Landed (1976) Discussion > Accurate firefights.

Accurate firefights.

posted 17 years ago by volorkey
10 replies | jump to latest

I was very impressed by the way they did the fire fights in this film. After seeing countless war films that follow the 8 year old with his army men approach. "These guys run up they shoot OH NO they all die! Now these guys Run up BANG BANG they die too!"(The film that sticks in my mind as an example of this is Hell is for Heroes *shudder*) It just makes me sick to see war films done this way. But this film had the use of covering fire and it showed soldiers making effective use of cover not just running around in the open. Sure it's no Band of Brothers and some of the equipment is not correct, (latter war carbines and the later model bazookas) But I can look by that because they took the time to have their extras look like they have actually been trained.

I'm impressed, anyone else?

[–] adamjg 17 years ago

I liked it too. The choreography of the fight scenes seemed realistic. Emphasis on the fury and chaos without being Ramboesque. They didn't have have a lot of hero grandstanding except for Larry Hagman's character and we know what happened to him.

I was wondering about the weapons too. The M-1 carbines – some were full auto and all had banana magazines. This film was set in 1943, did they have that stuff then? They also have an M3 Greasegun, which I don't think was introduced until later – '44? Is that right? Funny, no Garands in sight at all. They seemed to go carbine crazy in this film.

As far as the German's went: They were dressing as Polish Paratroopers, but were more-or-less modeled after British paratroopers, due the Sten machine guns. That was the impression I got.

Another good thing was the score. I really enjoyed the old school style of the music.

[–] volorkey 17 years ago

Yes you are right about the Grease gun and m1 carbine which I believe is actually an m2 carbine. As far as the Polish Paratroopers since they were supplied by the British their style of uniform and equipment does not surprise me.

[–] BalanceOfPower 17 years ago

I just revisited this movie last night and I too was impressed by the fairly realistic portrayal of squad combat not seen in other films and such.

One thing that stuck out in my mind was the way the Germans fired their Sten guns. It is my understanding that the proper way to operate those guns is by shouldering it and with your other hand holding it up front. Whenever one sees Stens used in other movies, the actors are usually holding it by the cartridge, which, if I am not mistaken, could potentially cause a gun jam or other problem.

So I thought this was nice attention to detail.

Can anyone back me up on this particular detail however?

Thanks,

Mike

[–] jschager 17 years ago

I agree about the holding of the sten gun. The common hollywood style with the left hand positioned on the magazine would reduce accuracy and possibly detach the mag or otherwise jam the gun. I thought this film was particularly well-made.

[–] contactacb 17 years ago

I agree the fighting scenes were well planned and they must have had good advisers.

Also nice to see the realism often missed of both sides taking realistic numbers of casualties - too many films of this era saw the allies unscathed except for plot significant deaths & injuries.

Polish equipment was spot on - as being equipped via UK supply lines and trained by them they had largely British weapons including Sten guns, which as already mentioned were being correctly held.

The use of the Sten Mk2 is accurate as it was the most widely produced & used during WW2.

The US troops had M2 select fire carbines with 30 round mags, rather than M1 carbines with 15 rounds. Unlike the M1 the M2 could be used on automatic fire, as seen when the NCO rushes Mrs Grey after Larry Hagman gets blasted.

The M2 was produced in the dying stages of WW2 & in two small numbers to see use across a whole company as depicted in the film - it was more prevalent in Korea.

I would assume it's choice may have been affected by them being more readily available than M1's and Garands at the time, and that they could be used in full auto (many films love to have full auto fire all over the place). Also using Garands may have been rejected as too large & cumbersome for the close action scenes.

The lone M3 sub machine gun is accurate as they were introduced late 1942 & through 1943 as a low cost mass production alternative to the Thompson.

Nicely done was the reloading done by some troops on both sides and not all of them having 5,000 round magazines

[–] Locomotiva1 15 years ago

post-War M-2 carabines with selective fire and banana magazines were the bigger mistake in the firefight (also the bazooka was a post-war 89mm weapon).

They used that both because all that were more common and avaiable than M-1 carabines, and because a war movie required much "rat-at-at"-ing automatic fire.
A "true" unit would have more M-1 Garand rifles, few single fire M-1 carabines.

M-3 grease guns were already in use: production started in 1942 by General Motors Lamp Division. So it's entirely belivable.

Polish units in the war were equipped and trained by British forces: also French, belgium, holland, and even italian (from 1944) units received british uniforms, weapons and ammunition.
They had some insigna painted on stitched on, but nothing more.

So polish paratroopers would use british camo smocks and STENs: they had the polish eagle painted on helmets, exactly as shown in the film.

[–] Darknessviking 13 years ago

i love threads like this!

[–] jenniferles1000 17 years ago

Yeah i agree i thought the firefights were very realistic.

[–] chris-rogers2 15 years ago

In the final assault on the church, on eof the US soldiers has two short (15-rnd) mags taped together, and is clearly seen sapping them over. My fave bit though is that - for th first time that i saw and possibly the only time - they correctly show that, when loading a bazooka, you also have to wrap the wires of the projectile round the electrical terminals on the tube. That's an incredible level of reality.

[–] canuckteach 15 years ago

Book was excellent, too, in relating military jargon - and contains some other hideous details of S.S. tactics against their own military personnel...

- the theme that German soldiers also suffered from Nazi policies is a feature of the book. note: in the movie, Canaris is particularly well portrayed by Anthony Quayle.

*spoilers* (partial)

- the father of Steiner (Michael Caine) is also German military, but was under S. S. imprisonment at the order of Himmler, to induce Steiner to complete his mission, and not capitulate to the British.

- the German commando squad included a 'British Freecorps' thug - this was a British citizen who joined the German S.S. to fight the Russians, claiming anti-Communist sentiments. Freecorps members were universally hated, by everyone, including the S.S.

- Liam Devlin survives and shows up in other Jack Higgins novels.

- the Jewish girl that Steiner helped in the beginning, at the Railway yard? she escaped successfully!

:-) canuckteach (--: