Відео

I haven't had good luck with Finnish war films. Was blown away by the clips of The Unknown Soldier on YT and ordered a DVD copy from an ebay vendor. Told him he sent me the wrong region when my copy arrived and wouldn't play. He sent me a replacement for free - and it also didn't play. Tali-iHantala 1944 is similarly on my list of want to see films but haven't had time to source it via a streaming service. Tell us why you like it.

@@HandGrenadeDivision The Unknown Soldier is definitely one of the best war films to come out in its decade, and IIRC features a couple of real T-34s and a T-26. Tali-Ihantala has noticeably lower production values, but the real draw is that they brought out all the stops in the tank department: Stugs, T-34s, SU-122s and KVs on loan from the Finnish government with some real solid combat scenes featuring the Stug interior. Pound for pound, I'm pretty certain it takes the crown for historical film with the most variety of genuine running tanks, but overall I'd rate it lower than Unknown Soldier. The full Tali-Ihantala movie is actually up on here, and if streaming on UA-cam ain't your thing the Johnny's War Stories channel has a clip of just the tank combat.

@@ericweisseman Very helpful - thank you! I'm sure I've seen clips on YT before, I'll check out the full film - should have looked before I responded.

Not at the unit level. Like all modern armies, the Germans had very specific procedures for replacing vehicles, and armoured crewmen had to train and gain experience on individual vehicle types in order to be able to use them efficiently. A Marder unit in a divisional anti-tank gun battalion wouldn't find itself receiving Jagdpanther vehicles, for example. They *might* receive assault guns (StuG), but they would be in purpose formed platoons, fight independently of the Marder platoons, and the crews would receive training on those types. This was the case in the 65th (Hand Grenade) Division, for example, which was equipped with both Marders and Semovente assault guns. The Semovente M42s were replaced wholesale by Jagdpanzer 38(t)s. They didn't retain the Semoventes which were struck from the divisional equipment lists.

Divisional frontages being what they are, one wonders how often vehicles from different battalions (my copy of Zetterling is not near to hand but I presume the assault guns and Marders were in the StuG battalion and anti-tank battalion respectively?) would operate together within the confines of a single farmer's field....but at this point I run the risk of sounding far too critical. If I had the resources to build a Marder, a Jagdpanther and a StuG I would very much want to get them all on screen too!

What is a panzerjager 4 I can't find anything on I do you mean Jagdpanzer ?

@@echatzaki8777 Whoops, yes!

I should add that the GvB did not get all its promised gear. Aside from a few command examples, they received none of their sd.kfz 251 halftracks. Their panzer grenadiers went to the front in Italian trucks and French bicycles. The Aufklarungs/recon troops received no 250's halftracks either, although they did get their 18 armored cars. As compensation, they received an over-allotment of schwimmwagons, fifty units. The 17th was manned primarily by ethnic germans from Romania.

They were indeed very good at creating battle groups, whether by design or circumstance, though I'd still question whether individual vehicles were deployed in mixed platoons. It happens so often in wargaming, comic books, video games and other media (such as this miniseries) that it *feels* right but I'm still not convinced those organizations weren't welded together from homogenous vehicle types. One sadly notes it is likely no longer possible to ask those who were there how it was actually done.

The cinematography is amazing as is the direction - just enough chaos to suggest what the event was like, but enough visual landmarks for the viewer to maintain his sense of how the battle is flowing. I liked the detail of showing an underbelly hit on the StuG - and that the producers didn't pander to the audience to explain that was what was going on.

For sure. Often these Expert Reacts videos aren't about the specific models and makes, but about whether they get the feeling and emotion accurate to the experiences these Experts went through.

If this was "stump the band" you would have a big fat prize right now. It's a great question. I'm not sure Edwards included them in his book, I'll have to go back and check. Not sure I've even seen that many photos of Moebelwagen and other SP Flak vehicle crews.

@@HandGrenadeDivision Yeah, I tried looking it up, but didn't get much, plus most of the photos I found of self-propelled anti-aircraft vehicles didn't contain the crew, and if it did, only their heads were visible.

This isn't remotely true, all German officers were issued the steel helmet and were required to wear it for both parades and in the field.

The historical record is what it is. There is an advantage to lying in wartime - for security reasons, for propaganda, for morale. It's just unfortunate when those necessary falsehoods get passed off as fact after the war.

It is very easy to cross the line into overly-celebratory.

3 years of prior service, good health, knowledge in science, special equipment, and skill, as well as the regiment commander's confirmation. i'm willing to bet most if not all of these were ignored near the end of the war due to officers needed on the field

Thanks for taking the time to comment so constructively. I've never heard of your channel, so I appreciate getting the opportunity to review what you have to offer. I was instantly drawn to your review of German pronunciation in this video ua-cam.com/video/OKDHOG1BEv4/v-deo.html - you note that it was a redo of an earlier video which received negative attention, and as soon as I heard your "shaky American voice" say LOOOOOOFwahfuh I guess I knew why. Glass houses and all that stuff, eh. Let me know when one of your videos hits 4 million views and I'll do the same - at current rate on my leading vid, I'm hoping it will be sometime this summer. Regards from Canada, I remain yours sincerely, Shaky.

It's possible, though the other nations seem to have had much less "churn." The Red Army famously reintroduced Czarist uniform styling at about the time of Stalingrad as a Hail Mary to build morale, but I believe it was their only major change. Likewise the British Army started the war with many units still wearing Service Dress, made battle dress universal, and only made one major change, with its economy version. The Canadians changed even less, with a single pattern of BD and a few changes of insignia. And the Yanks also started in what the Germans derided as 'golf clothes', with wool shirts and wind-cheater jackets and then went the very smart 1943 combat uniform with double-buckle boots replacing the ankle boots and gaiter. Having said all that, it might be interesting to compare the Allied nations side by side over the course of the war to contrast when all these changes happened. I'll have to think on it, thank you for the suggestion.

I was actually thinking about this the other day. I found some references to them in the operations log of the Hand Grenade Division (65. Infanterie Division) and I would like to do something at some point about "summer dress' in Italy. Thanks for the suggestion - if I can find some decent references - and the time - it's on my short list.

Welcome home, and thanks for the comment.

No quibbles with most of what you say, though worth noting Dale Dye was the senior advisor on SPR. No idea how much of the "terrible tactics" were attributable to him as opposed to the script writer and director, but I've seen at the very least the idea that Hawkins mines could be turned into ad hoc command-detonated claymores laid at his feet. I'd suggest he's as susceptible to conflating modern practice with 1940s practice as anyone commenting here. For what it is worth, I've enjoyed all the films you mention. That doesn't mean discussions of authenticity aren't worth having. In fact, I've always felt that it should be taken for granted that films will get many things wrong in the sake of story-telling, and that audiences should use them as a springboard to books and memoirs to get the "real" story.

@@HandGrenadeDivision Thanks for the response. Dale Dye has stated on more than one occasion that when authenticity bumps against what the director or the screen writer wants, then authenticity loses. His job was to minimize the loss. He also knows better than to put a machine gun in a tower as they did in SPR. Machine guns are most effective when they provide grazing fire and not as a point weapon, a lesson learned in WW1. They also operate in pairs. The bridge in SPR is a choke point, knock out the tank at the entrance, and if you can’t, you blow it. Either way you deny access to the bridge. In addition, whether the bridge remained intact or not was not important as every American, British and Canadian division had Bailey Bridges (a British invention) that could be quickly, hours not days, or constructed by engineers( they are still used). But, I understand that doing it the way it was done in SPR is much more dramatic. In the Battle of the Bulge the engineers blew every bridge they came across, thus slowing down the Germans advance, and earning Pipers disparaging comment “Those damn engineers.” In Normandy, the biggest problem for the allies were not finding a bridge, but the Bocage County, i.e., the hedge rows that made every field a major battle. Instead of resorting to fiction, the film maker could have easily told a true story about actual courage and sacrifice. There were 10 Medal of Honor recipients between June 6 and June 11, 1944. Any one of their stories would have honored all those who served there, for example Walter Ehlers had been with the 1st Infantry Division since North Africa, and his brother was killed on D-Day. Thanks for posting, I enjoy reading your comments and the comments of others. I agree with you that if you really want to know what happened read a history book.

Since we're bashing SPR I'll share my favourite nit. The idiotic MG scene at the radar site. Obviously the plot demanded that someone die. Now, as you state well, MGs are valuable assets and rarely left out in the middle of nowhere alone. The scene as depicted made no sense. But you could have had all the important story elements intact if you had decided to have Miller order them through a suspected minefield to save time. In fact, the story begins with Hanks' character telling Dennis Farina's (too-old) colonel that they lost men to minefields in the fighting right after D-Day. What a great setup. You have all the dramatic elements - Miller orders them to do something risky, someone gets killed, Ed Burns' character freaks out, then the dramatic reveal of Miller's background. And you'd also lose the dumb "Steamboat Willie" subplot which ends with Upham redeeming himself - by committing a war crime against someone just doing his job. Long story short, I have a lot of issues with the movie, but the social impact of the film seems to outweigh all that. It put World War II veterans very firmly back in the public consciousness and did a great deal to promote memory of the war when it was starting to fade out. The online community that built up around the film made me friends I still have 25 years later.

@@HandGrenadeDivision I agree. I couldn’t understand why they took on one MG guarding a bombed radar cite when their order was to find Ryan. The excuse that someone else would have to do it is weak. If a rifle company had come upon it, the company commander (And I was a rifle company commander) would either use his 60mm mortars (a company commander’s hip pocket artillery). or a couple of rifle grenades. It was unnecessary to do a frontal attack, except to get someone killed as you point out. Even with all its flaws, and there are many (it’s Hollywood after all) I also agree with you that I’m glad it was made so the remaining WW2 vets could be honored. I won’t hold my breath for something like that happening for Vietnam vets.

Welcome home.

Haven't removed any comments on this one, at least not yet. Post it again and if it is on topic, informative and/or funny without being profane or attacking other commenters, odds are it will stay.

@@HandGrenadeDivision Nope, I didn't use profanity, Violent terms or ANYTHING RACIST. Just a compliment on the vid and a quick story of mine, inline with the topic. I commented early this morning when the vid dropped.

Honestly, I never saw it. Must be a glitch - please try again.

@@HandGrenadeDivision No problem. See you next vid. 👍

UA-cam does this all the time, lol.

I think he ate the fish

Interesting, thank you. Dale Dye, the Marine veteran who was the military advisor on Platoon, apparently got some flak for having the soldiers refer to the helicopters as "Helos" which apparently was also a Navy/USMC term.

I read that 'Wilco' is short for "Will comply" which is different from Roger, which merely means message received.

I wonder if it didn't happen on set, with actors who have heard the phrase all the time and used it naturally. There may well be a script writer or two cringing in their media room as they see the final product.

@HandGrenadeDivision possibly, another answer may be that it came from Dale Dye, who was an advisor on the film, though I'm assuming it was more with army lingo rather than how to operate a B-17. And since he's a Vietnam vet, he may have picked it up during his service and told it to the actors.