"Worst wrong tank syndrome movie. " Topic

Movies were they at least tried to remedy the problem are safe. So SPR, Kelly's heroes etc.
Even in bridge too far they did try and nazi up the leopard.

The first two that comes to mind. Is Patton (were you have a battle of patton vs patton tanks) and of course battle of the bulge.

Tobruk with George Peppard

It's anazing what you can do with a little plywood. The wheels, on the other hand.

The Italian movie Battle of El Alamain, when the British attack they use M-113's as British tanks.

The Battle of the Bulge is pretty dire, not just for the German M47's and US Chaffees, but the fact that it is filmed in summer, in the desert, and Telly Savalas as a tank commander manages to survive having the turret blown of his tank unscathed (rest of tank untouched), but manages to savalage a 30 cal with which to mow down Germans disguised as GI's.

Is there a special award for that rhomboid with turret in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade? The only time I know of when someone went out and built a fantasy tank for a historical setting.

Not a movie but I remember an episode of Combat where they used a Stuart as a German tank

I get a sense of déjà vu whenever this topic comes up because of the number of times I've seen it on tmp.

My vote's for 'Anzio' (1968). The post-war M47 Patton was used to represent both German panzers and Allied tanks.

But 'Battle of the Bulge' certainly can share the dubious honor.

Movies that are good otherwise I give a pass on using ahistorical tanks. Patton, no problem since it is an excellent movie. Indiana Jones, hardly historical and I consider the Panzerfaust that was not invented at the time the movie takes place (and not a Panzerfaust) worse than the tank in the third movie. The T34 being used as a US tank in SS Doom Trooper gets a pass as well, first for finding and using a T34 instead of some postwar US tank and second since the movie is great (dreadful garbage but it knows it and relishes the fact).

That leaves "The Battle of the Bulge", a terrible terrible movie with non-historical tanks BUT it gets a little bit of a pass for having that tank battle at the opening of the battle – very few tanks battles having been done in movies at the time.

That Combat episode is fine.

Even Germans would use a Stuart as a German tank if they caught one!

So many movies it is hard to choose …

My vote's for 'Anzio' (1968). The post-war M47 Patton was used to represent both German panzers and Allied tanks.

From the pics you posted the top tank is an M47, but the lower pic is an M60. Will have to watch it again sometime.

Enemy at the Gates has a burned-out T34-85, gives our resident treadhead fits every time he sees it.

I don't remember a Stuart in Combat! but I do remember several M41's being used.

I don't mind them using as good a tank as they can reasonably find to fit a historic vehicle. The M47 was a good choice for the Tiger II as they were both about the same size and general shape. What else could they do for a Tiger II in the 1960's? It's not like there were operational Tiger II's sitting around that they could have used. They made their errors in the other things mentioned, filming in summer, using the same tank on both sides, etc.

+1 MajorMike because using an M113 as a WWII vehicle is very bad.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
bunkermeister.blogspot.com

Come to think of it, I definitely don't remember a Stuart in Combat!, that would have jumped out. M41's and M60's.

My problem with patton was the use of patton tanks on the American side.
Shermans aren't exactly rare animals.

First episode of combat was good and then it went down hill from there.
Apparently they only "rented" some of the weapons which ment that besides the pilot and a few special episodes. The MG42 was replaced by i think a 1917 .30 cal.

Seriously the same couldn't find in their budget a few thousand $ to by an mg42 or 34?

I recall a Saladin being used to represent a German tank in one of those dodgier 1960's British war films.

I would go along for the Battle of the Bulge.I think this would be a good candidate for a remake which seams to be the current trend at the moment.
It has to be remembered that that the average Joe public wouldn't notice the difference between an m48 or a Panzer 4 .
As a railway enthusiast I could take other movies to bits like the recent Dunkirk film which shows troops bring transported in carriages which are BR Mk1s which were introduced in 1957.

Sacrilege!

The movie "To Hell and Back" had Audie Murphy holding off the Germans with a .50" MG on the back of a Sherman when in real life it was on an M10A1 TD, but at least it was a Sherman, not a Patton or a Chaffee.

My problem with Patton was the use of Patton tanks on the American side.
Shermans aren't exactly rare animals.

Actually, they were at the time. Also at least in my memory most of the "American" tanks were M-41 Walker Bulldogs, not M-47 or 48 Pattons.

I don't have a huge problem with modern tanks portraying older ones. It's only like an actor portraying a real person he resembles approximately but not exactly.

The M113 was ludicrous though.

Hi Fred

Actually I think Top photo is M48 [90mm] and lower Photo M47

In the old movies as late as the 70s or 80s … all they had to do is put an or IJ "meatball" on any AFV, etc. is all they had to do to make it "Axis" …

IIRC in the BIG RED ONE, an IDF Super Sherman or some up-gunned version of a later M4 MBT, was used for a Pz IV or V …

As I occasionally remark, few outside of our small circle of nerds really care. It takes a military history nerd as a director to care and go to the extra expense.
I have seen interviews with directors when "accuracy" comes up. You get either a blank stare or some nonsense about his artistic sense.

Thus in the most recent Four Feathers, the director said he put the British in the Sudan in red, knowing he was wrong and they should have worn khaki. He wanted to show the British out of their element. However, that fictional Regiment WOULD have worn red, since they came directly from England. So by deliberately choosing what he thought was wrong, he was inadvertently correct.

All you complaining about tanks, go watch Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor and get back to me. It's a textbook case of "wrong ship, wrong plane". He used dark green Zeros because he liked the color better than the proper greyish green.
I hope he never does a tank movie, or the blood pressure on TMP will shoot through the roof.

WS: + 1

It's a textbook case of "wrong ship, wrong plane". He used dark green Zeros because he liked the color better than the proper greyish green.

There was a lot more wrong with it than that, starting with an abysmal script.

I hope he never does a tank movie, or the blood pressure on TMP will shoot through the roof.

If Pearl Harbour is his usual standard I hope he never does another movie period!

In Westfront, 1918, The German position is overrun by some weird looking French tank, completely Fictional, like a Catapillar tractor with a tin roof. Not even a Renault That was probably available.

I have no problem with movie producers using the wrong tanks, especially when the correct ones are not available. It is the contempt for history in general that frosts me. If they don't want to be bound by the historically correct narrative, then shoot fantasy. Anzio stopped being about Anzio when the Rangers get wiped out. Battle of the Bulge loses it after the Malmedy Massacre.

John, I think the circle of people who care is much larger than just history nerds. It's just that the right people, namely those who make movies and TV shows, don't care.

As a railway enthusiast I could take other movies to bits like the recent Dunkirk film which shows troops bring transported in carriages which are BR Mk1s which were introduced in 1957.

That wouldn't upset me as long as it didn't look too different from the original. So Kelly's Heroes despite having a mocked up Tiger and post war 76mm conversions of Sherman's which weren't used during the war, doesn't bother me as at least they tried, plus it was a cracking film.

Seriously the same couldn't find in their budget a few thousand $ to by an mg42 or 34?

That's a few tens of thousand $. USD A transferrable (ie, legal-to-own) MG42 is going to run about $35,000. USD And it's going to take a year for Uncle Sam to approve the transfer.

But isn't Combat filmed in Hollywood? There's a whole industry of people whose job is to collect and otherwise wrangle stuff to use in movies decades later. There should be several folks with MG42s there.

Combat! was a SelMar Production, filmed on an MGM backlot and at the Korbel Winery. They had a total budget of $127,500 USD per episode to cover all expenses, including salaries.
link

The cast wer happy to have chairs to sit in!

Why do you not see perfect tanks?
Three answers.
1. Budget
2. Budget
3. Budget

I am far from being an expert on computer graphics but I am just wondering why these are not used more in war films when they are used in docudramas to a good effect ?

Would that also not solve the budget problem as well ?

Good quality CGI is very very expensive.

Low budget CGI looks even crappier than low budget substitute equipment.

Also note the production dates of the works mentioned above.

On an entertaining budgeting tangent, Combat!'s battle scenes caused budget headaches for Mission Impossible.

FIlming the combat scenes was very expensive for Combat!'s budget. They did a very decent job of filling in with stock WW2 footage when they could, and even re-using their own footage. But otherwise whenever they had scraped up enough money to shoot an action scene, they would do it in the European Village section of the back lot. (Hint that's why all the village scenes look like they are in the same town.)

The Mission Impossible crew groused that whenever they went to film an episode in that European Village set, it was right after Combat! had shot it all up again, and Mission Impossible had to repair the combat damage to the buildings [again].

Why would you need to buy an MG42 for $35,000 USD though? After you've used it you sell it on for pretty much what you paid – or you rent one.

I no longer have the car but I used to be on a list of classic car owners who were prepared to lend their cars to TV companies who needed period vehicles for street scenes, etc.

While not to the level of either Patton or Battle of the Bulge, Rat Patrol had some odd choices… I remember in the first episode there were modified M7 HMCs as German "tanks" and M3 halftracks for Sdkfz 251s and in later episodes, M47s as well (all painted in a sand color with Balkankreuze). There was also a scene of an American camp with several M47s but then there was a Sherman in the foreground?

And of course the combination of .50 cal and grenades from the Rat Patrol was always more effective than the tank guns!

Not having practical effects really sucks in films IMO. I can't stand most CGI because what good CGI I have seen is too expensive for a non Star Wars film. It takes a really good producer really to get this going. If the director and producer want to figure it out I am sure they can. Despite my dislike of Fury, the fact that they tried hard to keep it practical is admirable.

On the subject of fake tanks, are we talking remodels? The tiger in Saving Private Ryan is not original. I would prefer tanks that are "mostly there" than CGI or fake tanks. Although, like has previously been posted, good films can make up for it. Patton for instance.

Its fair to point out that the bad tank substitution has greatly diminished. Most current WWII TV/movies make some attempt at depicting correct vehicles.

I remember the Bridge at Remagan had a SPW251 (probably post war Czech since that's where the filmed it) and Chaffees for M4s and this seemed like a real effort.

A Bridge too Far did well with allied vehicles and even the German recon charge wasn't terrible. Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers use rebuilds (let's hope they kept em). Fury for all its faults had a real Tiger I (vintage already i '45) plus passable M4s.

One of the oddities of the silly Battle of the Bulge movie is the director – he also did Longest Day which made some effort to use WWII era equipment. Oddly Spain where BB was filmed had lots of WWII equipment wandering around (the Spanish operated PzIVs after the war) but no one attempted to use. In their defense a big tank battle using vintage stuff may have been impossible. Good CGI should, however, allow it now with some real/rebuild stuff in the foreground.

TomT

Why would you need to buy an MG42 for $35,000 USD USD though? After you've used it you sell it on for pretty much what you paid

Except it will take Uncle Sam a year to approve your selling it.

Title 3 firearms are a pain in the butt.

You're right about renting one, though.

It should be reasonably easy to source WW2 kit or good proxies these days. There are several Tiger and Panther mockups on T55 chassis which look a lot better than the T34 version from Kelly's Heroes. OT810's have been converted to 251D and C's. I am pretty sure I saw a STUG mock up in BoB. The Bovington Panzer III is a runner. Hetzers still around having been used by the Swiss post war. Plenty of allied kit around too.

Loved and drooled all over The Rat Patrol as a kid. I even bought and built the Aurora model kit and still have some of the bits and pieces floating around somewhere. Anyway, they used an eclectic mix of vehicles in the various episodes.

Fred the problem is getting all that equipment in one place. As you mention rather scattered about. And, to be honest, since the vast majority of the ticket buying public neither knows or cares, then not worth it for most productions especially those number crunchers watching the bottom line.

ZOC,

I totally agree… as a kid I loved the Rat Patrol (and Combat — the mid 1960s had some fun WWII series). I also had the Aurora set — the sand dunes and oasis made their way in to May of my first wargames!

I too had that Aurora Rat Patrol set. And yes, those sand dunes are still in my gaming terrain inventory !

As some have posted here, in more recent WWII movies "vis-mods" of some of those AFVs of the period were produced. To make existing AFVs like those of WWII. With the first being "Kelly's Heroes" in @ 70. Where T34/85s were "converted" to look like Tiger 1s. ("We was assaulted by those Tigers !") And we as see that in much more recent offerings. As in SPR, BoB, Wind Talkers, etc., etc. Even in "1941", an M4 was converted to look like an M3 Lee, I saw that as a local tank museum, over a decade ago …

Fred the problem is getting all that equipment in one place. As you mention rather scattered about. And, to be honest, since the vast majority of the ticket buying public neither knows or cares, then not worth it for most productions especially those number crunchers watching the bottom line.

Hmmm! Not convinced. They seem to get plenty of kit together for reenactments and military vehicle shows and presumably they are paying their own expenses for those events. Covering their expenses, a chance to meet the stars and if reenactors be part of the action would probably tempt a lot along. Also not sure using the wrong kit would be that cheap. The days of the Soviet army lending you 50,000 troops to stage the battle of Waterloo are long gone.

Commonwealth troops using M113 at El Alamein, in Italian movie "La Linea del Fuoco" (otherwise a good movie):

They also M48 Patton for tanks and have French AMX-13 SPG hulks as burned out tanks.

link

At the start of Captive Heart, the column of BEF prisoners is passed by a troop of black-crossed Comets. There is also a brief glimpse of what looks like a jagdpanzer IV. Good film, regardless of tank heresy!

Battle of the Bulge is in my opinion the worst ww2 movie ever. It's absolute garbage.