Is this pro-USA?
I'm just asking.
shareI never understand this question. It's a dramatization of a true story about American soldiers, written and told from an American perspective. Is it a gung-ho, flag-waving propaganda film? Not in any way, shape or form. It illustrates the horrors of war even as it showcases its subjects' heroism, but since I don't understand your criteria for what constitutes a "pro-USA" film, maybe I can't answer your question properly.
The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.
Thanks, my english is not very good. What I mean was if it was a propaganda film.
share"Band of Brothers" is definitely not anti-USA, but it does make it clear that sometimes certain members of the American armed forces (from private to colonel) have shown poor judgement and made serious mistakes. In this respect, BOB presents a more realistic portrait of the US military than seen in many American films.
shareAgain that word...is it supposed to encourage us to make war on Germany again or something?
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
No, but there are several films that shows USA as the heroes and everybody else as the "bad guys", and I'm very tired of that.
shareAnd they're set during WW2? Please enlighten.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
Were the Germans not the "bad guys" in WWII? They are really the only ones shown in a negative light in this series, and even they get cut some slack (the regular Wermacht anyway, not the SS, who don't deserve any slack). It is fully acknowledged in the series that most German soldiers were just regular guys doing what they felt was their duty to their country, much like the Americans.
The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.
(the regular Wermacht anyway, not the SS, who don't deserve any slack)
Believe it or not but even the Waffen SS conscripted young men against their will. My friends grandfather was one of them. At aged 16 he was drafted into the Waffen SS and sent to Hungary in early 1945 with the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend. He was terrified and didn't want to be there anymore than I would have. And not all Waffen SS were fanatical baby eaters. In fact the majority of the Waffen SS front line soldiers didn't even commit any war crimes, contrary to the myth.
Also, and this is very interesting, a lot of young men actually joined the Waffen SS when the Waffen SS expanded into full panzer divisions in early 1943 because they were seen as the glamorous elite. Rather like the US Marines or the Paratroopers were seen as elite in the USA.
Ever since the Battle of Kharkov in Feb/March 1943 when the newly formed Waffen SS Panzer Korps (1st SS Panzer Division, 2nd SS Panzer Division and 3rd SS Panzer Division)were seen as largely responsible for saving the entire southern front in the east, right after the disaster at Stalingrad (no SS involved at Stalingrad) when these Waffen SS Panzer Divisions re-took Kharkov from the Red Army and put Germany in the position to go on the attack again, these Waffen SS Panzer Divisions started getting all the attention and glory in the German newsreels back in Germany. They were seen as heroes. Not for committing war crimes and massacring Jews but they were seen as heroes for sticking it to the Red Army in front line combat operations. It increased even more after The Battle of Kursk in summer 1943. The newsreels in the cinemas, with their propagandist spin on things, glamorised and gave prominence to the elite superpowers of the Waffen SS Panzer Divisions to such as extent that the poor ol' army units were usually left out, even when many army units did equally as well as the Waffen SS.
Many young men, who expected to be conscripted anyway, were swayed into joining the Waffen SS purely because of it's elite status and their belief that the Waffen SS had the best equipment and had the best chance of success. Let's face it, when the newsreels are showing Waffen SS panzergrenadiers and Tiger tanks overcoming the Red Army its got to have an impact. Before 1943 the Waffen SS wasn't a particularly huge organisation. It became much bigger in 1943 and then through 1944 when it's premier divisions became full Panzer Divisions.
The Wehrmacht (Heer =army) were not all innocent of war crimes just as the Waffen SS were not all guilty of war crimes. share
Great post. My grandfather and uncles were ethnic Germans (or more properly, descendants of Austrians living south of Lemberg/Lviv) who all fought in the Polish army, and after that war was lost, they and their families were relocated to Posen/Poznan, and since they were all officers (my grandfather had fought against the attempted Russian invasion of Europe in 1920), they were given the choice of joining the Heer, or being handed over to the Communists (where they would have surely been killed, as likely would have my dad, his brothers and sisters, mom, aunties, and cousins).
Later in the war, again because they weren't proper Deutsch, they were transferred to several Waffen SS regiments. My grandfather died, as did one of my uncles (who won quite a few medals first before being killed in Romania), and one survived the war. None of their correspondence home, photographs, or areas where they fought in reported any war crimes, but who knows I guess? But membership in the Waffen SS shouldn't be considered automatically that you were a war criminal.
The Estonian film "1944" is quite instructive/edifying towards this topic.
[deleted]
Hey Chuck. As a general rule the enemies are the "bad guys", so how about you stop watching American movies? That will solve your "tiredness" problem.
share[deleted]
No, but there are several films that shows USA as the heroes and everybody else as the "bad guys", and I'm very tired of that.
shareYeah here is the horrible anti German screed from this show in it's entirety:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh4AE-NjGBk
and here is another horrible anti German scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K397NmwGxg
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
I haven't watched the show that was why I was asking. Those clips seem very interesting. Thanks for posting them.
shareRead the book, and you'll have your answer. Stephen Ambrose did a fantastic job of researching and getting the stories, not only from the experience of the "common" soldier, but from both sides. Some of the true stories, as told by American, British, and German troops are quite astounding.
Stephen Ambrose did a fantastic job of researching and getting the stories, not only from the experience of the "common" soldier, but from both sides. Some of the true stories, as told by American, British, and German troops are quite astounding.
Some of the events told in Ambrose's book are incorrect at times when dealing with the British during Market Garden. Here is an example.
Band of Brothers Pages 135-137:
"Sink ordered Lieutenant Colonel Strayer to have 2d Battalion make an end run, a flanking move to the left. It would be supported by British Sherman tanks. There was a wood of young pine trees along the left (east) side of the highway to provide a screen for the flanking movement. Company E (Easy) led the way for the battalion...Winters ran back to the tanks. He climbed onto the lead tank 'to talk nose to nose with the commander'. He pointed out that there was a Tiger Royal dug in on the far side of the road. 'if you pull up behind the bank on the edge of the woods, you will be hull-defillade, and you can get a shot at him.' Winters climbed down, that tank and the one to its left cranked up and began plowing straight through that stand of trees, knocking them down.
As the first tank got to the side of the woods, it wheeled left to line up for a shot at the Tiger. Wham! The Tiger laid into it. The shot hit the cannon barrel and glanced off the hull. Evidentally the German commander had fired blind , lining up on the falling tops of the trees.
The British tank commander threw his tank in reverse., but before he could back out, the Tiger put a second round dead center through the turret. It penetrated the armor. The commander's hands were blown off. He tried to pull himself up through the hatch with his arms, but then his own ammunition began to explode. The blast killed him and blew his body up and out. The remainder of the crew died inside...The Tiger turned its 88 on the second tank and knocked it out with one shot."
So much wrong with this 'version' of events as written by Ambrose.
1. Not only was the German AFV not a Royal Tiger and instead was a Jagdpanther of Schwere Panzerjager Abteilung 559 but Worley's pathetically armed Sherman 75mm of Number 4 Troop 44th Royal Tank Regiment was over 600 yards away from it and would have had zero chance of penetrating the Jagdpanther from that range so Winter's advice was of no use. The Sherman 75 had to move forward and close in to be able to penetrate. Clearly Winters didn't understand the limitations of the 75mm's armour piercing.
2. There are no knocked down trees in the picture of Worley's knocked out tank and the picture clearly shown Worley's direction of travel with the woods behind him and all trees fully standing.
3. There is no evidence from the pictures that a shot hit the Sherman's barrel and glanced off the hull. There are no marks on either in the pictures.
4. The Sherman was not thrown in reverse. It moved forwards and continued to move forward until it hit the embankment at the road. The picture shows Worley's tank abutting the road embankment.
5. The crew were not all killed. Three were killed. Walter Worley, Frank Harman and Walter Robinson. The other two crew members survived and escaped the burning tank.
6. There were no other Shermans of Number 4 Troop knocked out there at that spot by the same Jagdpanther. Walter Worley's Sherman was the only tank knocked out there. No others were.
7. There was another Sherman of Number 5 Troop knocked out later in a different area by another Jagdpanther but this was after a flanking attempt to the east was started. This was the Sherman 75mm of Lance Sgt Tom Newman. Advancing round a corner in a wood it came face to face with another Jagdpanther. The Sherman fired at the Jagdpanther at very close range and scored a direct hit on the front glacis....but the shot bounced off and the Sherman tried to reverse into cover. The Jagdpanther then quickly fired 3 times, all 3 shots which penetrated and Newman and two of his crew (troopers Huggings and Hollis) were killed. Two other crew members were wounded but escaped and survived.
Pictures of Worley's tank and of the terrain and the graves of the 6 tankers of 44th Royal Tank Regiment who died that day can be found on page 559 of Market Garden Then and Now by Karel Magry. Also here. This is Walter Worley's actual tank knocked out:
http://www.ww2incolor.com/dramatic/Sherman+Tank+Of+XXX+Corps+Supporting+the+101st+Airborne+Division_+506th+Parachute+Infantry+Regiment.html
Anyone wanting to read a proper telling of the events south of Koevering on 25th September 1944 should ditch Band of Brothers by Ambrose and read Market Garden Then and Now by Magry instead. Ambrose didn't even research the British unit nor the names of the dead British tankers. share
by spasek
Read the book, and you'll have your answer. Stephen Ambrose did a fantastic job of researching and getting the stories, not only from the experience of the "common" soldier, but from both sides. Some of the true stories, as told by American, British, and German troops are quite astounding.
"Stephen Ambrose did a fantastic job..."
No, he didn't. Most or all of his books are riven with inaccuracies due to sloppy or no research. Not only were former British Airborne members irritated by fallacies in his books but American veterans too.
Ambrose was a poor historian who rarely checked his facts and worse, injected massive amounts of his own bias into his supposed "history" books.
I simply refuse to recognise his books as a valid source of the history on any of these events.
Trust me. I know what I'm doing. share
Absolutely Hotrodder. Now I don't know to what extent Ambrose pissed of American vets but I know he was cack handed and incompetent with the British events.
shareHot I've always found Ambrose's stuff poorly researched by secondary or tertiary sources...that being said, I found this series one of the best things I've seen on the screen (Much better than the book: in some ways he's like James Mitchner: awesome descriptive material & weak & flabby action sequences)--
With the work that went into building the characters, the script & screenwriters did a much better job 'fleshing' out these people-you got to know then & then it's awful to see them get blown to shreds, maimed, crippled or mentally broken.
AND...given reality was probably much more boring or mundane, I am 'OK' with issues/events/characters being being combined/altered for dramatic effect.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
I am 'OK' with issues/events/characters being being combined/altered for dramatic effect.
I'm not when it belittles British troops, Nick. As I said before, the British tank unit wrongly depicted in Episode 4 was an extremely battle hardened veteran armoured unit with 3 years combat experience (starting in North Africa including Gazala and El Alamein, then Sicily then Italy and then all through Normandy), compared to Easy Company's 3 months. Yet you wouldn't know that judging by the way they are portrayed, which wasn't accurate at all and in fact quite insulting to their memory. share
And more to the point the British tanks and their crews in that episode were made the scapegoats in order to make the heroes of BoB look less fallible- an old screenplay writers trick (to make someone else the villains/scapregoats to make the hero look even more heroic) but unforgivable when it claimed to be a representation of real events.
The British armoured units actually had performed well, even heroically that day but you would't know that from Episode 4 as the episode deliberately makes them look both foolish and incompetent.
Ambrose's version of events were utterly wrong and by condensing those events the TV episode makes it even more inaccurate.
Buddy's right- it's an insult to the British tank troops who fought and died that day.
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.
Yes it is Hotrodder especially as that day the British tankers, with the help of the 101st Airborne, actually removed Panzer Brigade 107 as a threat to the Eindhoven and Son areas. After the fighting at Neunen and earlier at Son, Panzer Brigade 107 suffered enough casualties that it had to withdraw from the area and though it later fought days later further up Hells Highway, it never again threatened the Eindhoven area or the bridge over the Wilhelmina Canal. The day's fighting on the 20th September was actually a success for British tanks. Though they withdrew from Nuenen after the ambush, they did enough for Panzer Brigade 107 to pull back from Eindhoven, badly mauled.
share"Battle hardened" vets can be a mixed blessing. After three years that tank unit knew all the ways a fellow could get killed & acted accordingly. Another author (was it Michael Reynolds of 'Steel Inferno'?) wrote that Monty was often frustrated by some of his 'desert Vets' because they tended to be 'overly cautious'.
I am reminded of Iron Major's defense of the episode as he was a 'tread head', had been to the battlefield & had read every scrap of info on the tank actions of market/garden.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
I am reminded of Iron Major's defense of the episode as he was a 'tread head', had been to the battlefield & had read every scrap of info on the tank actions of market/garden.
Were was this Nick? Where is his defence? I'd love to tackle that. I too have been to the battlefields (my friend's parents live not far away over the border in Uedem, Germany, site of the Hochwald battles) and I've done cycle trips around the Market Garden battlefields and know the layout of the land well. I've also read every scrap of info on the tank actions there...but there is no way I can defend the awful misrepresentation of events in Episode 4, especially as a Brit. They really are skewed and an insult to the British tankers. share
I remember IronHorseMajor's defence of that episode, Nick, and his arguments were frankly rubbish. It was obvious to me that he hadn't read that much about the incidents described in both the book and condensed for Episode 4 or he would know that they were a gross misrepresentation of the true facts.
Ambrose got almost everything wrong and then the TV episode made it even worse, deliberately manipulating events to make the British tankers look like total chumps.
Here is the thread concerned, Nick- read it again. Buddy initiated the thread and I later included both quotes from Ambrose's book and a description of the episode and compared them to the actual recorded events- corroborated by both the British and German combat histories.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0185906/board/thread/229470608?p=1
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.
To quote me!:
"The events shown regarding the British tanks and Easy Co in Episode 4 are essentially based on three seperate sections in Ambrose's book.
The chapter we need to refer to is Chapter 8: Hell's Highway, beginning on Page 123. To quote from the book Pages 127-128:
"Sept 19th. A squadron of Cromwell tanks from the Hussars accompanied Easy. Some if the men rode on the backs of the Cromwells...' Webster heard Pvt Jack Matthews call out 'Kr*ut tanks!'...107th Panzerbrigade...was attacking...with some fifty tanks...Sgt Martin saw a German tank almost hidden in a fence row about 100 meters away. A British tank was coming up. Martin ran back to it, climbed aboard, and told the commander there was an enemy tank just below and to the right. The tank continued to move forward. Martin cautioned the commander that if he continued his forward movement the German tank would soon see him.'I caunt see him, old boy,,' the commander replied, 'and if I caunt see him, I caunt very well shoot at him.'
'You'll see him damn soon,' Martin shouted as he jumped down.
The German tank fired. The shell penetrated the British tank's armor. Flame erupted. The crew came flying out of the hatch. The gunner pulled himself out last; he had lost his legs. The tank now a flaming inferno, continued to roll forward on it's own, forcing Bull Randleman to move in the direction of the enemy to avoid it. A second British tank came forward. It too got blasted. Altogether four of the British tanks were knocked out by the German 88s. The remaining two tanks turned back into Nuenen. Easy Co fell back with them."
So much wrong with this. 15th/19th King's Royal Hussars (referred henceforth as 15th/19th KRH) war diaries (based on the daily combat reports by the men involved) show only a few casualties (men only- no tanks were lost) on Sept 19th and that 15th/19th KRH actually locked horns in combat with the 107th Panzerbrigade on the 20th September, not the 19th. 107th Panzerbrigade had 36 Panthers and 11 Jagdpanzer IVs, not fifty and all weren't available/servicable. More to the point, 15th/19th KRH's war diaries say that they lost no Cromwells that day - indeed no Cromwells were lost at all 19th-21st Sept.
So just who was this commander who ignored Martin and died along with his crew then if no 15th/19th KRH tanks were lost? And the other tanks Ambrose says were lost but weren't? Clearly Martin's story seems to lack validity. Ambrose's abilities as a historian definately do.
Lastly 107th Panzerbrigade's war diaries back up the British version of events. The British claimed four Panthers destroyed, the German records say two Panthers destroyed and two disabled. A successful day for 15th/19th KRH, driving the Germans back- hardly what Ambrose claims at all. Also the Germans did not claim any Cromwells destroyed.
So Ambrose's account is simply false and Sgt Martin's testimony either mistaken due to memory or a falsehood.
Getting back to Ambrose now, Page 129:
"Sgt Martin (there's that man again!) went over to a Cromwell, hiding behind a building. He pointed out the church steeple and asked the commander to take it out, as the Germans were using it as an observation post. 'So sorry, old man, we can't do it,' the commander replied.'We have orders not to destroy too much property. Friendly country you know.'"
Again we are asked to take one man's version of events with no corroberation- showing Ambrose to be a poor historian yet again. Oddly googling whether there was any such order almost always takes you to the Band Of Brothers. I haven't managed to find such an order in my books on Market Garden or the 'net itself. Did such an order exist? In any case the destruction wrought during Market-Garden to the towns involved hardly showed it being demonstrated that it did exist! In any case any tank commander worth his salt is going to take out an enemy position if he can.
Getting back to Ambrose again. Pages 135-137:
"Sink ordered Lieutenant Colonel Strayer to have 2d Battalion make an end run, a flanking move to the left. It would be supported by British Sherman tanks. There was a wood of young pine trees along the left (east) side of the highway to provide a screen for the flanking movement. Company E (Easy) led the way for the battalion...Winters ran back to the tanks. He climbed onto the lead tank 'to talk nose to nose with the commander'. He pointed out that there was a Tiger Royal dug in on the far side of the road. 'if you pull up behind the bank on the edge of the woods, you will be hull-defillade, and you can get a shot at him.' Winters climbed down, that tank and the one to its left cranked up and began plowing straight through that stand of trees, knocking them down.
As the first tank got to the side of the woods, it wheeled left to line up for a shot at the Tiger. Wham! The Tiger laid into it. The shot hit the cannon barrel and glanced off the hull. Evidentally the German commander had fired blind , lining up on the falling tops of the trees.
The British tank commander threw his tank in reverse., but before he could back out, the Tiger put a second round dead center through the turret. It penetrated the armor. The commander's hands were blown off. He tried to pull himself up through the hatch with his arms, but then his own ammunition began to explode. The blast killed him and blew his body up and out. The remainder of the crew died inside...The Tiger turned its 88 on the second tank and knocked it out with one shot."
Fairly close to reality for once, with the obvious fact that 44th Royal Tank Regt had knocked two Jagdpanzers out earlier in the same action and that 107th Panzerbrigade eventually withdrew. Not quite the debacle Ambrose paints it all up to be. The misidentification of a Jagdpanther by Winters as a King Tiger is understandable. Although why Ambrose keeps calling them 'Tiger Royals' is not. That the British tank commander was told he was facing a Royal Tiger and still tried to carry out his duty shows him as a very brave man, not a fool. He was there to do his job and he tried to mount an attack on an enemy tank knowing he was outgunned (and outarmoured if it was a Royal Tiger). Only two Shermans were lost in total in reality.
But does anyone get a sense of deja vu here though? According to Ambrose on two seperate occasions a member of Easy Co sees a dug in German tank, runs to a British tank, climbs onto it and talks to the commander, who then subsequently gets killed with his crew- to paraphrase John McClane- "How can the same sh!t happen to Easy Co twice?"! Both even have one crew member attempting to climb out minus various limbs- the stories are almost identical. The only one that seemed to have actually happened was with Winters and the 44th RTR so I surmise the other story is actually a memory of this action somehow transplanted to the other. Very rum! Don't think we can quite trust Sgt Martin's decades old memories!
Finally to the episode itself.
We first see Easy Company riding on three Cromwells and three Shermans all carrying the markings of the Armoured Recce Regt (15th/19th KRH) of 11th Armoured Div (a white 45 on a green and blue square)- which didn't use Shermans, it used Cromwells and a few Challengers. They then enter Neunen- the 15th/19th KRH's action was actually outside Neunen to the Northwest. However the 44th RTR did enter Neunen. They come under fire. Sgt Martin of Easy Co. sees a camouflaged German tank. He runs to the lead Sherman and speaks to the commander saying there is a Kr*at tank hidden behind the building and to put a couple of shells into the building so he can see it.
'I can't,' says the British commander, 'My orders are no unnecessary destruction of property.' Sgt Martin: 'I'm telling you he's right there!' British tanker: 'I believe you, but if I can't see the bugger I can't bloody well shoot him can I?'
Thankfully the director decided not to make the tank commander sound like Terry-Thomas on gas but the screenwriter also decides to shoehorn in the bit of dialogue from a completely different incident, apparently just to make the British tank commander look a complete berk. That any tankie would refuse to open fire on an enemy held building in the middle of a battle is patently absurd anyway.
Sgt Martin jumps off and departs with a sour 'He's gonna see you real soon!'. The Sherman moves forward, the commander trying to see what's happening. Bull Randleman helpfully says 'What the hell is he doing?' to reinforce more pointedly that the tank commander is behaving like a total prat. A Tiger 1 opens fire and destroys the following Cromwell and then moves forward firing at Easy Co. A Jagdpanther then appears and destroys the lead Sherman. The Sherman rolls forward on fire making Bull Randleman scramble forward to escape it. Easy fall back. The Jagdpanther destroys another Sherman. Stug III appears and destroys yet another Sherman. The remaining British tanks reverse out of Neunen and Easy Co withdraws. The Germans win the day. Bully for them!
So the episode is an amalgam of three different incidents from Ambrose's book, but written in such a way to show the British tankers as inept and ineffectual when in reality that wasn't the case at all- as I've clearly demonstrated above.
It's an old film trick that if you want your protaganists to look good you include someone else looking or behaving badly or foolishly. The British won that particular booby prize this time. Note also that Winters didn't claim that the tank commander spoke to him in some damn silly upper class accent either, unlike Sgt Martin's story about his apparently fictional tank commander. The first part of Ambrose's history- the bit concerning 15th/19th KRH- is largely fiction- 15th/19th did not lose 4 Cromwells at all. Ambrose didn't seem to even bother to consult primary sources as any repuable historian should- in this case the war diaries of 15th/19th KRH and 107th Panzerbrigade. Hell, he obviously didn't even read Easy Company war diaries either otherwise his narration wouldn't be so faulty. And Episode 4 is therefore mostly derived from very bad writing indeed and is certainly not based on fact. Some facts but not that much.
Finally, it's all from Easy Co's perspective is it? How can it be when both Ambrose's and the TV episode bear only little relation to the real events? The episode shows Easy Co arriving in Holland, getting an enthusiastic welcome then hob-nobbing with the natives and then making for their target- the bridges. The bridges are then completely (and conveniently) forgotten about and events switch forward. Why wasn't this bit included from Ambrose's book:
"When the lead American elements (including Easy Co) were 25 meters from the (Son) bridge, it blew in their faces.There was a hail of debris of wood and stone. Winters, with Nixon beside him, hit the ground, big pieces of timber and large rocks raining around them. Winters thought to himself, What a hell of a way to die in combat!"
So obviously Easy Co. witnessed the bridge's loss and their failure to capture it didn't they? So why wasn't that shown if it supposed to be from their "perspective"? The very reason they'd been dropped into Holland in the first bloody place- to capture the bridges! Instead we get the British acting like total turkeys instead."
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.
Well can't say for sure but IronHorseMajor is...a treadhead (and an officer to boot); gotta go back thru the old posts & find his siggie...
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur57826529/boards/
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
I'm not a squaddieworshipper, Nick. Just because someone is military or ex-military doesn't mean his opinion is sacrosanct, especially if they belonged to the modern military. The recorded facts clearly demonstrate that both Ambrose and the TV series portrayed these events wrongly. Episode 4 deliberately and falsely
shows the British armoured troops acting in a foolish incompetent way that simply didn't happen.
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.
But as a tanker and a guy who had to study the battles during M/G AND had to 'walk the battlefield' his opinion of things is probably more valuable than say, an armchair history buff like me.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
Yes but nick, we are getting our info from people who actually fought in the battles and not somebody 70 years later. The fact of the matter is that the events in Episode 4 are not accurate and are in fact a mishmash of cherry picked incidents cobbled together in a haphazard manner. Even the recollections of some Easy Company troops have been proven incorrect by the photos. They have mixed certain events up. Episode 4 shows more British tanks getting knocked out than reality and Episode 4 doesn't show any German tanks getting knocked out. In reality the battle for Nuenen was an evenly fought contest in tanks. The British tank unit lost fewer tanks than Ambrose claimed. Episode 4 doesn't show the British tanks knocking out 2 Jagdpanzer IVs just prior to entering Neunen, which they did in reality. In Karel Magry's Market Garden book it also shows Panthers knocked out in the Nederwetten and Nuenen area, where Easy Company and 44th RTR worked together. Neither the book nor the t.v series mention this....yet the photos are clear as day.
shareYes but still...if the problem is with BoB it's 'no secondary research' & 'dramatic confluence'...it's only a Ten part series & only one or two parts centered on Holland-and the shuttling of the Red Devil Survivors seemed well organized & crisp.
See I never read ALL of the original book & I don't think I read any of the other soldier's memoirs either. Some people complain that Liebgott wasn't Jewish, Blythe wasn't a coward & Cobb wasn't a loudmouthed A-hole but that doesn't detract from my overall enjoyment of the series.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
Some people complain that Liebgott wasn't Jewish, Blythe wasn't a coward & Cobb wasn't a loudmouthed A-hole but that doesn't detract from my overall enjoyment of the series.
I was thinking something similar to this. The miniseries, as much as I love it, isn't even faithful to the memories of some of the men it portrayed, such as Cobb, Blithe, Liebgott and also Ed Shames and David Webster. Do I feel that it was unfair? Absolutely. Some regulars on this board may be aware of my admiration for Webster, but I didn't develop that admiration until I read his book, because the picture of him that the series painted was different than the reality. So while the portrayal of the British in the series may be inaccurate and, if so, also unfair, the unfairness is not limited to the British, and a series that mis-portrays some of the real people who were principal characters, it probably shouldn't be overly surprising that it would do the same to others. I do NOT, however, think that the portrayal of the British was meant in a xenophobic manner.
The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. share
So while the portrayal of the British in the series may be inaccurate and, if so, also unfair, the unfairness is not limited to the British, and a series that mis-portrays some of the real people who were principal characters, it probably shouldn't be overly surprising that it would do the same to others.
I am aware of that as that has been criticised as well by others. No need for me to do that. Myself and Hotrodder will stick to the misrepresentation of the Brits as that is our speciality and we'll let others with more knowledge about the individual Easy Company soldiers do the same, if they wish to, or don't wish to.
I do NOT, however, think that the portrayal of the British was meant in a xenophobic manner.
There is some evidence to suggest that Ambrose was somewhat like that. Also there were some downright false claims such as the British stopping for tea at 10.00, 2.00 and 4.00 like clockwork every day no matter what. The British advance on Nuenen (with Easy Company) on the 20th actually got under-way at 9.30 a.m and did not stop for tea LOL. share
By the time he wrote Band Of Brothers Ambrose was clearly virulently anti-British. It seems it was his egotistic response to getting criticised by British Airborne veterans for inaccuracies in his earlier books. He obviously went into an almighty huff which lasted for years.
So not surprisingly this has filtered over into the TV series. I was initially pleasantly surprised at first seeing pictures of British tanks in the series but disappointed at their portrayal. This is one of the few times that British soldiers are shown and they're shown as complete ass holes. Not a fair thing to do but so typical of Hollywood these days in its frequent derogatory portrayals of the British. So one of the few times the British are shown in BoB they're shown as total pillocks. So yes, I have an issue with that.
The tea drinking claims are nonsense. EVERY soldier, British, American or German took sustenance whenever they could- a lull in the action or whatever- but you don't hear the Americans or the Germans getting knocked for pausing for coffee at times- which they certainly did.
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.
Yes but still...if the problem is with BoB it's 'no secondary research' & 'dramatic confluence'..
Yes Nick but it's a stand out problem to those who know the facts. Obviously not a problem to those who don't and who only have Band of Brothers as a source, as these people aren't aware there are any major inaccuracies or misrepresentations so they don't know anything was awry.
it's only a Ten part series & only one or two parts centered on Holland
True mate, but the events in Episode 4 are very much cherry picked and are misrepresented. We never are shown Easy doing much or anything wrong. We are never shown them failing to capture the Wilhelmina Canal bridge as that major part of the operation is ignored and we are shown that the only reason Easy was forced back was because the British tankers were useless and didn't listen to Easy's advise and got a one sided pasting vs German armour instead. This didn't happen in reality. The Easy troopers don't look to have done anything wrong in Episode 4 at Nuenen. Not so the British tankers who are shown acting like headless chickens.
See I never read ALL of the original book & I don't think I read any of the other soldier's memoirs either. Some people complain that Liebgott wasn't Jewish, Blythe wasn't a coward & Cobb wasn't a loudmouthed A-hole but that doesn't detract from my overall enjoyment of the series.
But those aspects have been criticised in many places. Here on IMDB I'm pointing out to people who don't know that the British tankers were shown inaccurately and were misrepresented and that the real life events didn't happen as portrayed in Ambrose's book and in Episode 4.
Don't forget, it was in response to this post here:
Read the book, and you'll have your answer. Stephen Ambrose did a fantastic job of researching and getting the stories, not only from the experience of the "common" soldier, but from both sides. Some of the true stories, as told by American, British, and German troops are quite astounding.share
The misconceptions about Blithe, Shames, Cobb and Webster were dramatic inventions created specifically for the miniseries; they weren't corroborated by any Easy Company veteran or by Ambrose; as for Liebgott, there was a mistaken perception about him he either wasn't aware of or couldn't be bothered to correct. But as for Easy's dealings with British forces during Market Garden and the Island, Easy Company vets all agreed the Anglo-American partnership of 1944 was often strained, with British soldiers doing things that sometimes "amazed" them. But Easy also admired the British for their sacrifices, perseverance and steadfast opposition to Hitler.
All of which comes across in episodes 4 and 5 - at least, to those who aren't DETERMINED to see it their own way. And no one has to take Ambrose's word for it; Winters' dealings with the British (including one tank commander) are discussed in detail in his biography "Biggest Brother" and autobiography "Beyond Band of Brothers," and Johnny Martin's encounter with another British tank commander can be found in Marcus Brotherton's "A Company of Heroes."
And for all of Buddy's talk about Easy Company's "failure" to capture the bridge at Son, the truth is Easy's paratroopers were dropped a considerable distance from the Wilhelmina Canal, and it took them over 7 hours to get there - giving the Germans more than enough time to blow it up. This event was already dramatized in "A Bridge Too Far" and wouldn't have impacted the overall tone of the episode, which dealt with Easy's experiences in an ultimately unsuccessful military campaign.
But Easy also admired the British for their sacrifices, perseverance and steadfast opposition to Hitler.
ESPECIALLY their fellow paras, The Red Devils, if Donald Burgett's memoirs are any indication.
As an aside, you said the blowing up of the Bridge at Son was dramatized in 'Bridge Too Far'; I had heard that the Elliott Gould character was 'inspired' by Colonel Sink; my mind boggles at that.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
share
And no one has to take Ambrose's word for it; Winters' dealings with the British (including one tank commander) are discussed in detail in his biography "Biggest Brother" and autobiography "Beyond Band of Brothers," and Johnny Martin's encounter with another British tank commander can be found in Marcus Brotherton's "A Company of Heroes."
Do they repeat the same claptrap and incorrect nonsense as written in Band of Brothers? In Band of Brothers pages 135-137 it is claimed:
"Sink ordered Lieutenant Colonel Strayer to have 2d Battalion make an end run, a flanking move to the left. It would be supported by British Sherman tanks. There was a wood of young pine trees along the left (east) side of the highway to provide a screen for the flanking movement. Company E (Easy) led the way for the battalion...Winters ran back to the tanks. He climbed onto the lead tank 'to talk nose to nose with the commander'. He pointed out that there was a Tiger Royal dug in on the far side of the road. 'if you pull up behind the bank on the edge of the woods, you will be hull-defillade, and you can get a shot at him.' Winters climbed down, that tank and the one to its left cranked up and began plowing straight through that stand of trees, knocking them down.
As the first tank got to the side of the woods, it wheeled left to line up for a shot at the Tiger. Wham! The Tiger laid into it. The shot hit the cannon barrel and glanced off the hull. Evidentally the German commander had fired blind , lining up on the falling tops of the trees.
The British tank commander threw his tank in reverse., but before he could back out, the Tiger put a second round dead center through the turret. It penetrated the armor. The commander's hands were blown off. He tried to pull himself up through the hatch with his arms, but then his own ammunition began to explode. The blast killed him and blew his body up and out. The remainder of the crew died inside...The Tiger turned its 88 on the second tank and knocked it out with one shot."
Winters' account in Band of Brothers, as describe by Ambrose, doesn't tally up to reality.
So much wrong with this 'version' of events.
1. Not only was the German AFV not a Royal Tiger and instead was a Jagdpanther of Schwere Panzerjager Abteilung 559 but Worley's pathetically armed Sherman 75mm of Number 4 Troop 44th Royal Tank Regiment was over 600 yards away from it and would have had zero chance of penetrating the Jagdpanther from that range so Winter's advice was of no use. The Sherman 75 had to move forward very quickly and close in to be able to penetrate. Clearly Winters didn't understand the limitations of the 75mm's armour piercing.
2. There are no knocked down trees in the picture of Worley's knocked out tank and the picture clearly shown Worley's direction of travel with the 'woods' (actually an orchard not a wood) behind him and all trees fully standing.
3. There is no evidence from the pictures that a shot hit the Sherman's barrel and glanced off the hull. There are no marks on either in the pictures.
4. The Sherman was not thrown in reverse. It moved forwards and continued to move forward until it hit the embankment at the road. The picture shows Worley's tank abutting the road embankment.
5. The crew were not all killed. Three were killed. Walter Worley, Frank Harman and Walter Robinson. The other two crew members survived and escaped the burning tank.
6. There were no other Shermans of Number 4 Troop knocked out there at that spot by the same Jagdpanther. Walter Worley's Sherman was the only Number 4 Troops tank knocked out there. No others were.
Pictures of Worley's tank and of the terrain and the graves of the 3 tankers of 44th Royal Tank Regiment who died at that spot can be found on page 559 of Market Garden Then and Now by Karel Magry. Anyone wanting to read a proper telling of the events south of Koevering on 25th September 1944 should ditch Band of Brothers by Ambrose and read Market Garden Then and Now by Magry instead. The truth is always better than misrepresented nonsense.
Picture of Walter Worley's knocked out Sherman.
http://albumwar2.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/38557-728x592.jpg
share
And no one has to take Ambrose's word for it; Johnny Martin's encounter with another British tank commander can be found in Marcus Brotherton's "A Company of Heroes.
Is is the same incorrect claptrap as claimed in Band of Brothers? In Band of Brothers pages 127-128 Ambrose writes:
"Sept 19th. A squadron of Cromwell tanks from the Hussars accompanied Easy. Some if the men rode on the backs of the Cromwells...' Webster heard Pvt Jack Matthews call out 'Kr*ut tanks!'...107th Panzerbrigade...was attacking...with some fifty tanks...Sgt Martin saw a German tank almost hidden in a fence row about 100 meters away. A British tank was coming up. Martin ran back to it, climbed aboard, and told the commander there was an enemy tank just below and to the right. The tank continued to move forward. Martin cautioned the commander that if he continued his forward movement the German tank would soon see him.'I caunt see him, old boy,,' the commander replied, 'and if I caunt see him, I caunt very well shoot at him.'
'You'll see him damn soon,' Martin shouted as he jumped down.
The German tank fired. The shell penetrated the British tank's armor. Flame erupted. The crew came flying out of the hatch. The gunner pulled himself out last; he had lost his legs. The tank now a flaming inferno, continued to roll forward on it's own, forcing Bull Randleman to move in the direction of the enemy to avoid it. A second British tank came forward. It too got blasted. Altogether four of the British tanks were knocked out by the German 88s. The remaining two tanks turned back into Nuenen. Easy Co fell back with them.""
So much wrong with this version of events too.
1. No Hussars tanks were lost on the 19th and nor were they even at Nuenen. The Hussars were at Geldrop and Mierloo.
2. It was the 44th Royal Tank Regiment, to be exactly B Squadron, that accompanied Easy and the attack on Nuenen was on the 20th. And they only had Shermans, not Cromwells.
3. The lead tank commanded by Lt Benton did not continue to roll forwards. It was hit and stopped soon after. A second quick shot blew it's turret completely off. There is a clear picture of Benton's lead Sherman with it's turret blown clean off on page 533 of Market garden Then and Now by Karel Magry.
4. The 44th RTR had already despatched 2 Jagdpanzer IVs a few minutes before in Opwetten, just a few hundred yards before Nuenen.
5. Only 2 British tanks were lost at Nuenen, both Shermans from the 44th RTR, not 4 Cromwells of the Hussars as claimed by Ambrose. There were also no 88s at Nuenen. Panzer Brigade 107 had Panthers and Jagdpanzer IVs, both armed with the 75mm L/70. share
The moment you can produce film footage that actually disproves what Winters and Martin have stated, you'll have made a convincing case. You still haven't done that.
Otherwise, stop getting your panties in a wad over Stephen Ambrose. Outside of a nominal producing credit, he had nothing to do with the 2001 miniseries. And try to remember it's not a documentary; it's a dramatic work that rightly focuses on Easy Company, and not the 44th RTR.
In the meantime, nothing is stopping you from raising 150 million pounds sterling and making your own miniseries. Have fun!
Truth be told Murph, if they DO produce a miniseries about 44th RTR I WILL Watch it because I'm sure they have a hell of a story to tell.
Anyway, I am sure the memories of the American Airborne soldiers will be fond: I am currently reading 'By Tank Into Normandy' a war memoir of Stuart Hills, a fellow who commanded Shermans with 'XXX (Thirty) Corp'; it includes a lengthy section on Holland. the Brits admired the 101st & 82nd Paras' boldness & daring in combat & in turn, the Yanks took great delight in his regiment's (Nottinghamshire Sherwood Rangers) 'flamboyant' style...anyway, they performed far better than the 84th Railsplitters infantry division with it's rather plodding & indecisive leadership.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
I can access the actual war records of 15th/19th Kings Royal Hussars if you want. Their regimental museum is a mere 8 miles from me. Their war dailies clearly show that Ambrose's version of events is WRONG. The German records back the British ones up. The TV series Band Of Brothers is BASED on Ambrose's book Band Of Brothers FFS (the title of the TV series is a bit of a giveaway- it's, um, Band Of Brothers) and repeats many of Ambrose's mistakes, it actually even elaborates on those mistakes and makes even more of it's very own.
I will say it again for the stupid- ie you, Murph- Ambrose claims that 15th/19th KRH lost four tanks on 19th September. The very records of 15th/19th KRH state they had no tank losses from the 19th-21st September but instead had knocked out four enemy tanks. The German records state they lost four tanks- two destroyed and two disabled. The disabled ones were presumably recovered later. The German records therefore tally with the British ones.
You can believe all you like that Winters and Martin were completely infallible but any decent historian knows that soldiers memories are faulty or they were mistaken and therefore needs corroberating evidence. The corroborating evidence shows that they were either wrong lor mistaken whether you like it or not.
YOU provide film footage to show I'm wrong then, Murph. Until that point STFU.
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.
I will say it again for the stupid- ie you, Murph- Ambrose claims that 15th/19th KRH lost four tanks on 19th September.
Misery loves company, so here's what Buddy Love wrote:
Only 2 British tanks were lost at Nuenen, both Shermans from the 44th RTR, not 4 Cromwells of the Hussars as claimed by Ambrose.
And I'll gladly say it again for the stupid and bigoted Brits who have clotted cream for brains (ie, Hotrodder and Buddy Love): Watch episode 4 again. To assist you, I'll give you a hint - that's the one after episode 3, but before episode 5. During the entire Nuenen sequence, only TWO British tanks are hit. TWO. That's all. The first one is hit at 32:57, and the second at 33:57. No more. So why are you getting your panties in a wad?
You want to complain about Ambrose's lack of accuracy and fact-checking? Join the club of Americans who already HAVE. But the point is, this is a message board for the miniseries, not Stephen Ambrose. However, if you want to discuss sources, the events in episode 4 have been already been fully corroborated; not by Ambrose, of course, but by the Easy Company soldiers who discussed them in their memoirs and various Easy Company histories. I've discussed them thoroughly before, but I'll happily repost those sources now -
When it comes to Nuenen, what the viewer sees is a simplified and streamlined version of events that Easy experienced. And as most of us (except the exceeding dense) already realize, "Band of Brothers" is a dramatic work that needs to compress episodes in the company's history to present the fullest possible picture of the period from 1942 to 1945. Episode 4 is no exception; it has to examine Captain Sobel's now-strained relationship with his ex-company, filter in the replacements joining Easy for Operation Market Garden, then include the events surrounding the jump itself, the almost diametrically opposed experiences of Eindhoven and Nuenen for Easy Company soldiers, the fate of Dutch civilians who cooperated with the Germans, the disappearance of Denver "Bull" Randleman & the search for him, plus the growing awareness that "Market Garden" was a failure - and with 7 minutes of the episode's 59 minute running time turned over to interviews and opening & closing credits, that leaves only 52 minutes for dramatization. 14 of those minutes are devoted to Nuenen; obviously that wasn't enough to present the viewer with an exhaustive, blow-by-blow account of combat operations there. On the other hand, what WAS shown accurately reflected what can be found in the memoirs, journals and biographies of Easy Company's soldiers.
In "Beyond Band Of Brothers," Dick Winters describes his time in Nuenen for Colonel Strayer in the following way: "Sir, I had fifteen casualties today and took a hell of a licking." Miller and Van Klinken were among the soldiers who were killed, and Bull Randleman was MIA. Winters took no solace in the fact that the Germans were unable to secure Nuenen; his company had been through a miserable, hellacious experience - and that is exactly what the viewer sees. What's interesting is how much of it can be found in Easy Company reference material.
1) Webster's confusion over a Dutch citizen's shouts of "Away!" (and what that actually meant) can be found in his memoir "Parachute Infantry."
2) Johnny Martin's encounter with a British tank commander is described by Babe Heffron in the memoir "Brothers In Battle, Best Of Friends," and a more thorough recounting can be found in Marcus Brotherton's "A Company Of Heroes" (in the chapter on Burton "Pat" Christenson).
3) The deaths of Robert Van Klinken and James Miller are discussed in numerous books, though "A Company Of Heroes" and the memoirs of Webster and Heffron offer the most vivid accounts.
4) Lieutenant Peacock's cluelessness in the midst of combat is also discussed in the Burton "Pat" Christenson chapter of "A Company Of Heroes."
5) The wounding of Buck Compton, and the use of a door to carry him to safety, is described by Babe Heffron in "Brothers In Battle, Best Of Friends."
6) David Webster discusses the shattering effect that Nuenen on Roy Cobb in "Parachute Infantry."
7) Lewis Nixon's close encounter with an enemy bullet (which left a hole in his helmet) is mentioned in the Dick Winters memoir "Beyond Band Of Brothers" - even though it happened during Easy's experiences in Uden and Veghel, and not outside Nuenen.
From a dramatic standpoint, the filmmakers decided the wounding of Lieutenant Brewer would work more effectively as Easy approached Nuenen - not Eindhoven, where it actually took place. One can debate whether this was a good idea or not, but this is the nature of filmmaking. And I hope this doesn't shock anyone, but you'll also find dramatic liberties being taken in "Lawrence of Arabia" and "The Bridge on the River Kwai". Once again, dramatic works are not documentaries. But anyone who takes the time to read the memoirs, journals and biographies written by & about Easy Company soldiers will see that the events recounted in Episode 4 are not as misleading and/or inaccurate as some (two in particular) would have you believe.
So stop wasting everyone's time with your irrelevant "My sources say THIS" line of idiocy. If you're calling Winters and Martin liars, then prove it. Back in 1973 Nixon & his entire staff said John Dean was lying about Watergate - that is, until actual tape recorded evidence proved he'd been telling the truth all along.
Therefore, if you want everyone to believe that all those Easy Company soldiers are liars, PROVE THAT THEY ARE. Show everyone the film footage and play the audio recordings. Until then, STFU. share
[deleted]
If you want to convince anyone that Dick Winters and Johnny Martin were lying, you'll have to do better than that. You've presented no film footage and no audio recordings.
Case not proven. Court adjourned!
Who said I was saying they were lying? Not me, I said Winters was mistaken in identifying a Jagdpanther as a King Tiger- that makes him wrong in that his ID was wrong. And that is verifiable fact as we know the position of every single King Tiger at that time and none were near Neunen. I consider Martin's story to be the result of either faulty memory or that he was relating a story he had heard- a thing soldiers do all the time. So as usual you accuse me of things I didn't say yet again, Murph. You really are a pathetic little toad aren't you?
Martin claimed it was a Cromwell of 15th/19th KRH that was subsequently destroyed after the commander was told of a German tank. Winters himself told the commander of a Sherman tank about a "Tiger Royal" which was similarly emplaced. The Winters story is verifiable- not least as we know the identity of the commander of the Sherman and have photos of it destroyed.
No Cromwells of 15th/19th KRH were lost on the dates that Martin claims them to be. It is clear to me that Martin was relating the incident with Winters and the Sherman and somehow got them confused with 15th/19th KRH's Cromwells from an entirely separate battle. As I said Martin obviously suffered from a faulty memory- why is that a surprise? At the time of relating it to Ambrose the incident was some 40 years ago and the confusion of an elderly man is understandable .
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.
Once again, you've proven nothing - except you don't know what you're talking about. Winters, Malarkey and Guarnere ALL reported seeing Tigers during Market Garden. So if you're calling them liars, and you actually want to prove what you're saying, all you have to do is present film footage of every German tank they encountered.
And when did Martin "claim" it was a Cromwell of 15th/19th KRH that was destroyed? In Burton "Pat" Christenson's journal, the only words that appeared were "British tank." In addition, Martin never calls it a Cromwell in the miniseries. So what are you babbling about?
Well in deference to Winters, Malarky etc, saying they saw Tiger tanks...truth is, when reading George Koskimaky's books on the 101st, the first thing I concluded was ANY tank with slab sides was a tiger & any tank with sloping armor was a king tiger. That being said, it probably was not conducive to a long life to stand around & try to get a good look at an 'angry Panzer';
It appears they probably saw a Pz IV or a Panther, though there were King Tigers in Holland--though I can't imagine how those things maneuvered thru those narrow Dutch streets.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
Cheers for that, Nick. Here's a quote from noted American armour historian Steve Zaloga regarding just that:
Question to Steve Zaloga: How many times did US forces encounter Tiger tanks?
"When you read unit accounts, whether it’s the actual unit after action reports or the published books, everyone talks about Tiger tanks. But in looking at it in both German records and US records, I’ve only found three instances in all the fighting from Normandy to 1945 where the US encountered Tigers. And by Tigers I mean Tiger 1, the type of tank we saw in the film. I’m not talking King Tigers, the strange thing is that the US Army encountered King Tigers far more often than Tigers. That’s partly because there weren’t a lot of Tigers left by 1944, production ends in August 1944. There were not a lot of Tigers in Normandy, they were mostly in the British sector, the British saw a lot of Tigers. Part of the issue is that US tankers were notorious for identifying everything as a Tiger tank, everything from Stug III assault guns to Panzer IV and Panthers and Tigers.
There was one incident in August of 1944 where 3rd Armored division ran into three Tigers that were damaged and being pulled back on a train, they shot them up with an anti-aircraft half-track. And then there was a single Tiger company up in the Bulge that was involved in some fighting. And then there was one short set of instances in April 1945, right around the period of the film, where there was a small isolated Tiger unit that actually got engaged with one of the new US M26 Pershing tank units. They knocked out a Pershing and then in turn that Tiger was knocked out and the Pershing tanks knocked out another King Tiger over the following days. So I found three verifiable instances of Tigers encountering, or having skirmishes with US troops in 1944-45. So it was very uncommon. It definitely could have happened, there are certainly lots of gaps in the historical record both on the German side and the US side. I think the idea that the US encountered a lot of Tigers during WW2 is simply due to the tendency of the US troops to call all German tanks Tigers. It’s the same thing on the artillery side. Every time US troops are fired upon, it’s an 88, whether it’s a 75mm Pak 40 anti-tank gun, a real 88, a 105mm field howitzer, they were all called 88’s."
What Murph can't seem to accept is that I'm only saying that Easy Company was also guilty of being mistaken at times as in the quote above and that their memories might be understandably faulty after forty years. He takes it as a slight every time to even suggest that their recollections might be indeed wrong about such things.
The daily war records show they were wrong at times though.
The unit war records regarding things such as tank and personnel losses were kept very accurate indeed, essentially for the cold calculating reasons that replacement tanks had to be procured, replacement personnel transferred to the unit and the dead soldiers' families informed.
Trust me. I know what I'm doing. share
Yeah that's the funny thing: All artillery shells are from '88s' & we actually fought King Tigers more often that the Mark I Tiger.
Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?
And here we go again- Quote from Band Of Brothers by Stephen Ambrose:
"Sept 19th. A squadron of Cromwell tanks from the Hussars accompanied Easy. Some if the men rode on the backs of the Cromwells...' Webster heard Pvt Jack Matthews call out 'Kr*ut tanks!'...107th Panzerbrigade...was attacking...with some fifty tanks...Sgt Martin saw a German tank almost hidden in a fence row about 100 meters away. A British tank was coming up. Martin ran back to it, climbed aboard, and told the commander there was an enemy tank just below and to the right. The tank continued to move forward. Martin cautioned the commander that if he continued his forward movement the German tank would soon see him.'I caunt see him, old boy,,' the commander replied, 'and if I caunt see him, I caunt very well shoot at him.'
'You'll see him damn soon,' Martin shouted as he jumped down.
The German tank fired. The shell penetrated the British tank's armor. Flame erupted. The crew came flying out of the hatch. The gunner pulled himself out last; he had lost his legs. The tank now a flaming inferno, continued to roll forward on it's own, forcing Bull Randleman to move in the direction of the enemy to avoid it. A second British tank came forward. It too got blasted. Altogether four of the British tanks were knocked out by the German 88s. The remaining two tanks turned back into Nuenen. Easy Co fell back with them."
And I'll say it again for the stupid- 15th/19th KRH very own war records state they lost NO tanks from the 19th-21st September 1944.
The incident Martin is describing is clearly the action involving 44th RTR and Easy Co several days later where a Sherman indeed was destroyed by a German AFV, but it was Winters himself who dashed to the British tank to inform the commander (Lance Sgt Worley) of a dug in German vehicle, not Martin. Why Martin said it was him that did so is the real mystery, but it is clearly the same story somehow rather mangled up.
BTW- The regimental museum of 15th/19th KRH is in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, very near me. Want me to pop up and read them for myself? Or you could write to them yourself. Which you won't because you're not interested in the truth, only your weird obsession that Easy Company were never wrong or mistaken about anything.
You're definitely a bit wonky in the head, Murph.
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.
Winters, Malarkey and Guarnere ALL reported seeing Tigers during Market Garden.
They were wrong- every single Tiger can be accounted for during Market-Garden and Easy Company never encountered a single one. They clearly misidentified German armour as Tigers- they did encounter German armour, just not Tigers. The Royal Tiger at Neunen that Winters described was identified by records as a Jagdpanther. As we know what German units were at Neunen and that they possessed no Tigers but did have Jagdpanthers it's not exactly a difficult conclusion that it was a Jagdpanther that Winters saw.
I'll say it yet again for the incredibly stupid- I am not saying that Easy Co were lying, merely that they made mistakes and recalled events either in the wrong order or mistakenly- hardly surprising some four decades after the war. How well do you recall events from 40 years ago, Murph? Every exact detail?
The actual records show that their memories were faulty and that -gasp- Easy Company made occasional mistakes. Doesn't mean they weren't brave soldiers but shows that like the rest of us they were flawed human beings.
...and you actually want to prove what you're saying, all you have to do is present film footage of every German tank they encountered.
One of the stupidest comments ever- can YOU produce film footage showing that they did indeed encounter Tigers thus YOU proving they did? No? Then STFU about saying I have to.
Trust me. I know what I'm doing. share
What Murph can't seem to accept is that I'm only saying that Easy Company was also guilty of being mistaken at times as in the quote above and that their memories might be understandably faulty after forty years. He takes it as a slight every time to even suggest that their recollections might be indeed wrong about such things.
Not at all. I'm perfectly aware Easy Company soldiers can misremember events from World War II. However, YOU'RE the one who's insisting they're wrong, and I'm simply asking you to prove your claim with undeniable evidence - ie, film footage of what you say Easy Company soldiers have gotten wrong. And I'm still waiting. Where is it?
You seem to forget how nonsensical your previous statement have been on these boards. Remember, you're the one who said you knew more about the motorbike Steve McQueen rode in "The Great Escape" than Steve McQueen himself. You're also the one who said all Irish people were drunk and stupid. And most recently you stated Johnny Martin "claimed" it was a Cromwell of 15th/19th KRH that was destroyed, when in fact he never said anything of the kind - the only words used were "British tank."
This is why I find it impossible to take anything you say seriously. share
YOU provide film footage to say they got it right. So stop making idiotic requirements for proof YOU can't provide either. Well, I'm waiting- where is it?
Winters misidentified a Jagdpanther as a Royal Tiger. We know which German unit fought there and they HAD NO ROYAL TIGERS! They did have Jagdpanthers though- guess which sort of AFV Winters saw was likely to be? Hmm, worked it out yet, ya dumb bastard?
I've almost given up with you, Murph, you're far too stupid for words.
Ambrose claims it was 15th/19th KRH who lost a tank in the way Martin describes on the 19th Sept 1944. 15th/19th KRH was an Armoured Recce Regt equipped with Cromwells. So again work out what sort of AFV it was likely to be, ya dumb feck. Well? Remembering that 15th/19th KRH DID NOT HAVE SHERMANS!
Martin is confused and is clearly describing the later interaction involving Winters and Lance Sgt Worley of the 44th RTR who was commander of a Sherman which did encounter a dug in German tank and did get destroyed. For some strange reason Martin claimed to be the man who talked to the tank commander ie Lance Sgt Worley, instead of Winters. Did he want some sort of vicarious (look it up) credit or something? Martin was also confused as to the British regt involved and the timing of the events, therefore his memory was faulty and that is the simple obvious explanation.
The only way Martin could be right was if there were TWO 44th RTR Shermans destroyed in an identical manner at almost the same time, or that 15th/19th lost a Cromwell tank in an almost identical manner in an earlier action when actually they lost no tanks from 19th-21st September 1944. That is all a tad silly. And we know exactly how the two 44th RTR Shermans were destroyed and only one was destroyed in a similar manner to Winter's description.
If Martin is claiming it was in an earlier action that lost a tank (and therefore this had to be 15th/19th KRH) in the manner he described then he's still wrong as I say yet again (how many times do I have to FFS?) 15th/19th KRH lost NO tanks from the 19th-21st September and this particular action was supposed to be on the 19th September. Are you seriously suggesting 15th/19th KRH covered up their tank losses for those days, Murph? Why would they? Just to spoil Martin's story? I would remind you that all military units record their losses very carefully indeed- they have to.
I can only think you are drunk and/or stupid if you insist on making stupid posts with all the coherence of a two bottle of whiskey a day man. If you're actually sober you simply can't be at all clever, Murph, as your posts seem to be by someone seriously impaired.
Stephen Ambrose's books have all been criticised many times for their inaccuracies, poor history and even accusations of plagiarism. We've proved on here in the past that Ambrose's version of events is wildly inaccurate (Blithe dying in 1948 is just one clanger among many). The series Band Of Brothers is based on Ambrose's book and not only repeats the inaccuracies it adds even more of them!
You're just wasting your time here, Murph, you're just too dim and lacking in WW2 knowledge to consider your posts seriously.
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.
[deleted]
can YOU produce film footage showing that they did indeed encounter Tigers thus YOU proving they did?
Why should I? YOU'RE the one who's claiming that Christenson, Winters, Malarkey and Guarnere are all lying.
SO PROVE IT. Prove it with undeniable & indisputable visual evidence.
share
You're lying yourself when you accuse me of saying they were lying- I didn't, I said they were mistaken or had recalled some events wrongly or in the wrong order or on the wrong days- not surprising after events that had occurred decades before.
We've already had a whole thread discussing this before. Here's a link for those who want to judge it for themselves. I'm not reiterating the whole thing again and again for the likes of you, Murph.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0185906/board/thread/229470608
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.
You're lying yourself when you accuse me of saying they were lying- I didn't, I said they were mistaken or had recalled some events wrongly
Ah, so you didn't say they were lying - you only said they weren't telling the truth. Thanks for making that distinction so clear.
Hotrodder, who claims that American soldiers can't be trusted when they recall their wartime experiences.
Hotrodder, the the xenophobic Brit who says all Irishmen are stupid and drunk.
Hotrodder, who actually believes he knows more about the motorcycle Steve McQueen rode in "The Great Escape" than Steve McQueen. share
Murph24, the stupid twat who responds to posts months old and keeps replying to someone who doesn't give a sh!t what he thinks.
Ad for the last time- I was insulting YOU Murph, ya stupid prick, not the Irish.
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.
Murph24, the stupid twat who responds to posts months old
Now, that's funny - especially coming from someone who's constantly bumping a thread that's two YEARS old. But then, you've always been clueless (and nothing illustrates that more clearly than the thread you keep bumping).
Ad for the last time- I was insulting YOU Murph, ya stupid prick, not the Irish.
If you were insulting me, you did a terrible job of it. You simply saw my alias "murph24," assumed my name was Murphy, then assumed I was Irish and said: "I know all Irishmen are drunk and stupid, but I thought they at least had a sense of humor."
And with those words, your bigotry was revealed to everyone on IMDb; you made an offensive generalization about ALL Irishmen. And you felt so guilty about it you offered an apology, to which I replied: "Don't apologize to me. Apologize to all the Irish people you insulted."
Still waiting for that apology.
share
I duly apologise to the Irish people.
But Murph is still an imbecile. And does come across as a stupid drunk even though he's probably sober.
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.
At least you're admitting to your bigoted remarks. But that's why it's impossible to accept anything you say as fair or objective - BECAUSE you've made bigoted remarks in the past. You've said that none of the accounts of Easy Company veterans can be trusted, and that's absurd.
shareNothing of the sort, l said decades old memories can't always be trusted. People get old and their memories fade and that's a fact. My dear old Father is living proof, sadly.
Never once did I say the BoB vets were lying, I said they either could be mistaken or that their memories were faulty. Both are occasional failings of every man, not just them.
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.
Nothing of the sort, l said decades old memories can't always be trusted. People get old and their memories fade and that's a fact. My dear old Father is living proof, sadly.
Except the memoirs of David Webster and Burton "Pat" Christenson weren't "decades old" when they were written. Though unpublished, Webster and Christenson wrote them in the 1950s - and their accounts were remarkably similar to those that appeared in the published memoirs of other Easy Company veterans. It's certainly unfortunate to hear about your father's deterioration, but you can't make generalizations about the mental faculties of ALL individuals simply because your father's memories are fading. That's a rather ridiculous generalization; it's like saying that all Irish people are drunk and stupid. Only a bigoted xenophobe would make a statement like that.
Never once did I say the BoB vets were lying...
No, you just said NONE of their accounts are accurate and NONE of them can be trusted. Which is another absurd generalization.
It's really laughable that you feel the story of Easy Company can't be told by Easy Company veterans. But then, that's a reflection of your very peculiar mindset. share
"Battle hardened" vets can be a mixed blessing. After three years that tank unit knew all the ways a fellow could get killed & acted accordingly. Another author (was it Michael Reynolds of 'Steel Inferno'?) wrote that Monty was often frustrated by some of his 'desert Vets' because they tended to be 'overly cautious'.
But the 44th RTR and the 15/19th Hussars did well against the German armour threatening Son, Nuenen and the Hell's Highway. As I mentioned before, if you get the 2 volume Market Garden Then and Now it will give you a complete picture of the scenarios, perfectly illustrated by hundreds of photos.
Around Nederwetten and Nuenen the book shows a number of knocked out German Panther tanks. Panzer Brigade 107 lost 8 Panthers alone on the 19th/20th September.
There are even photos of the knocked out lead Sherman into Nuenen and of the Sherman knocked out south of Koevering.
Its not easy taking on a Panther or Jagdpanzer IV or Jagdpanther with a Sherman 75 or Cromwell. share
if it was a propaganda film
No - it's actually based on the true stories of the men who were in the unit.
I don't think so.
I'm not from USA and I dislike their foreign politics, but this series is very well made, it's about the young men the actors are portraying, its focus is more personal than anything.
Please excuse my terrible redaction, english is not my native language