"Tactics in Saving Private Ryan?" Topic

Watching SPR "again" and wondering "again" about the tactics used by the US troops to defend the bridge. I know it's a movie and the tactics follow the script and screenplay. Just wondering if you were CPT Miller, what would you have done different? Personally, and professionally, I would have put someone permanently at the bridge to blow it if needed. I also would have used some of the Comp B to blow down some buildings to channel the Germans into a killing zone

The thing I really would have been tempted to do is defend the bridge from the other side, make the Germans pay as high a price as I could and then blown the bridge, if needed, with as many of the enemy on it as possible. I would not have put the "alamo" position so close to the bridge in that case.

First off would be knowing that the Bazooka would be able to know the tracks off the Tiger. Second, not putting an MG in the tower (and the Germans should have been watching that like hawks). Third not counting on the Germans to run in the open like idiots for half the battle (Luckily they did). Fourth would be to start firing from a distance before they got in town, frequently switching firing positions. Fifth would be to drag the kid away all tied up and told the Paras to rig the thing for demolition, blow it up, and run.

I thought the orders were to hold the bridge for follow up troops.

Funny, I was thinking about post an SPR question. In the scene where they attack the MG position, why the big discussion about who would go left? Never understood that.

For what it's worth, I think the reason they didn't go with a friendly-bank (as opposed to enemy bank) defense was 1) as mentioned above, they were supposed to hold the bridge and only blow it as last resort, and 2) they knew (or least strongly suspected after engaging reconnaissance elements of an SS panzer division) that armor was on the way, and without stand-off anti-tank weapons, the only way for infantry to have a chance was to channelize (great point above about using explosives to level buildings to block streets) them in an urban environment and use close in/improvised AT weapons.

Having said that, maybe withdraw to the friendly bank, put the MGs into enfilading positions to cover the bridge (out of line of sight to enemy heavy weapons on the opposite bank) to keep the enemy infantry at bay, then hope to bait an enemy tank onto the bridge where you could use close in/improvised AT weapons to immobilize it, thus blocking the bridge.

Good point above about not using the church tower as a fighting position, way too obvious, and you don't put machine guns up high anyway, misses the point of having a machine gun, really (only able to engage targets in a relatively small beaten zone).

Regarding the "who's going to go left" conversation at the MG position, I think the big deal was not actually who was going to go left, but the fact that no one was volunteering, because no one believed in going after the emplacement (the other runners weren't given a choice, Capt Miller just got to the end and asked 'who's gonna go left?').

V/R,
Jack

I've run a SPR scenario countless times at various cons. You have to start with the assumption that at some point the US Air (P51s) and Armor arrives to save the day otherwise there is no way for the US to win. Thus the battle becomes a delaying action where the best tactic is to engage the Germans as far away from the bridge as possible and carefully, very carefully, trade territory for time until the "cavalry" arrives. Hold any one position for too long and you get OVERRUN. Fall back too fast and you'll end up having to blow the bridge. Great fun game.

Some other thoughts. Cpt. Miller was obviously at the end of his game. He had the shakes. He froze on the beach. He had 35 KIA and 70 KIA trying to take an 88 battery, thats almost a full Ranger Company for a gun battery, horrible trade off! They took his company, what was left of it, away and so after saving Ryan his next slot was likely a staff position or ticket home. Done.

Having said that, he made several bad calls. His choice of Upham. He needed an interpreter true, but I'm sure with the clout that came with orders from the top he could have pressed for an experienced one. Given his orders he should have bypassed the MG42 position. Holding the bridge was dumb. What good was that if Ryan got killed? He should have arrested Ryan if needed and taken him back in "cuffs" if that was what it took. When you get orders direct from the Chief of Staff you dont mess with Mgs and defending the Alamo. But like I said he was all used up, thats why they took his company away. And it made a great movie!

I thought this was going to be about the ridiculous German tactics.

Anyway – we are supposed to be getting a film about the bridge at La Fiere, which was the original inspiration for the bridge battle. Maybe that will be less risible. Dale Dye is directing.

Something we have to remember, besides this being just a movie, in this case. In reality many times the commander(s) on the ground does not "make the right move/decision". Based on number of things. So in hindsight, etc., he should of done this or that, etc., that evaluation may not have always been applicable at the time, etc.

It's been said, the commander who makes the least mistakes wins… maybe …

Actually the one thing that really didn't make sense with the whole movie was that they were on a mission from the Chief of Staff, they had to search for one guy in a large area, and they had to WALK? The whole US army couldn't spare them a couple of jeeps or a halftrack? :)

They started out in a jeep but that is never seen again. Several well documented cut scenes esp when they came across a German column wiped out by air attack.

So many breaks in any logic, but a brilliant film anyway, esp the first 28 minutes. That bridge should have been blown long before. If it was that important, how come the armour and infantry all too so long to cover ground that this squad just walked across? They would have raced a light unit to capture and hold it. Tom Hank's unit just wander through a landscape of scattered paras, gliders, totally unopposed. An MG nest and sniper OK, both of which they could have avoided.

Did you know the two surrendering "Germans" who were shot, were speaking in Czech as they begged to be spared?

I hate Czech Nazis.

> An MG nest and sniper OK, both of which they could have avoided.

The MG nest yes but not the Sniper. They thought it was the only way to Ryan on the other side of him. Funnily enough THEIR sniper is the only one who could take out the German sniper. But that is Hollywood.

Short answer – The Ranger Sniper could have taken out that MG nest … That is what I would have done. But again … it's a movie …

SPR was an absolutely "Mind Blowing" fillum (Irish or Hindi for a "movie")

See it in the cinema, as I did, the week it came out and it was just incredible. I swear I came out with some element of Post Traumatic Stress thing myself, after a couple of hours.

But now we watch it over and over and begin to pick faults. (Is there a BluRay version? I had an HD TV transmission saved)

The story is daft. This squad wander on a odyssey through Normandy, it is almost post fall of Troy as they meet folk and wander on to another experience, whilst losing members along the way…as they grow more united.

The catharsis makes no sense at all. They have walked, largely unopposed, through Normandy (from Omaha beach across to the base of the Cotentin Peninsula…that is some walk…to get behind Utah Beach). To defend a vital bridge with a half dozen paras, which the landed forces reach within seconds of the first support evidence.

Poor blooming Czechs. OK Sudeten Nazis, but just as many Alsace/Lorraine French were suddenly told you are Volks-Deutsch and conscripted.

The MG nest was insane. Obviously that was the point. Miller's judgement was shot by then. It should have been bypassed and the first Sherman that turns up sends them to Canada, Steam Boat Willie goes back to Frankfurt. Miller sees his wife again and teaches English Composition (actually, what is that? I must Google it!)

Mistakes from the opening sequence to very the end, in what must surely have been the best war film ever?

I think Combat! did more with less…

I thought this was going to be about the ridiculous German tactics.

They were movie Germans. Standard tactics for them. Run around like headless chicken and get gunned down in droves. Sentries are always looking the wrong way etc. Movie Germans don't get taught Auftragstaktik! :-)

I always wondered about putting Upham and the MG ammo away from the actual MG. Yes, it sets up some dramatic story-telling, but other than that, why not just stack the ammo with the gun to begin with?

I didn't follow the story closely at that point – but perhaps they had 2 M1919A4s and not enough ammo for both – s o they had a reserve with Upham to be supplied to whichever gun needed it? That's the only logical reason I can think of.

To be honest – after the first 20 minutes SPR is totally ludicrous. I don't understand why Spielberg is rated so highly as a director.

> s o they had a reserve with Upham to be supplied to whichever gun needed it?

the only problem with that is the OTHER MG was way up in the church tower and there was no reasonable way of getting ammo to it.

SPR is a hard film to judge.

I would totally agree that the plot line is farcical after the opening 28 minutes. Nobody's behaviour makes any sense. Ted Danson's Paras wandering around a town, chatting, with Germans lounging around on the other side of a wall. An open countryside that lets 7 (sometimes 8 men even after Carpazzo is shot) just drift aimlesly across Normandy. The whole bridge nonsense, as we have explained.

I do not mind the minor historical errors eg Tigers and SS units, who were nowhere near the Cotentin Peninsula at that stage.

But what about the filming? Spielberg introduced ideas that so many have copied since. The shutter usage and faded colours that looked 1940s. The knife fight…..the paras blown off the Tiger…Jackson's shooting from the tower as we willed him to hit every time. Visually (and sound wise) it was a superb piece of directing and set a pattern for many to follow. B of Bs was better by far and The Pacific nearly as good.

Don't get me wrong (since I've been picking nits). I love this film and the first time I saw it I was mesmerized and didn't care one whit about the "problems". Contrast that with Fury where the problems were front and center. (Yeah, I went there)

Oh that is what nits are for!

I never understood what Upham was doing, with ammo belts that had missing rounds anyway.

Fury was way dafter and yet very derivative. Again, exactly the same idea of a last ditch Alamo stand, that made even less sense in 1945. A bunch of marching SS (and in broad daylight) up against the US Army in the last days of the war…..not exactly the Bulge all over again I suspect.

Fury was a joke. One of the premises was that the German Infantry had no anti tank weapons and so had to mass assault the tank.A scene of the same troops marching down the road shows that they are a carrying panzerfausts.

Hell, SPR was a movie, stop trying to explain it. deadhead hits pretty much all he gongs in his first post.

Good for its time and innovations but that's it.

And yes, Band of Brothers was yards better. Being a Series it had longer to develop characters and felt better in a military sense too, which no doubt built from it being tied more closely to actual events.

I could never warm to The Pacific though, it jumped around too much and there was no one individual or group you could really give a toss about.

Fury just sucked.

A scene of the same troops marching down the road shows that they are a carrying panzerfausts.

I concluded that the column first sighted isn't the one that engages the tank. The first column had a 1/2 track (IIRC, been a while since I've seen it), while the one that engages has a truck. The first seems well-provided with Panzerfausts, the second has only a few (which seem defective, not unreasonable in April of 1945). I think the first one might have had an officer on horseback, not sure the second did.

But yes, some very shady decision-making in service to the plot in that movie (which I think served mostly as an ad for World of Tanks anyway).

It was a film, and like every other film ever made, its primary goal was to provide entertainment in exchange for money. It was never a historical document. All considerations, logic, history, accuracy, are subservient and open to change and expediency in pursuit of the primary goal.
Which is a long winded way of saying it was pretty much nonsense. Entertaining nonsense, I grant you, but nonsense nonetheless.

I would have shot that SS guy from the ambush on the spot. And mega ditto about having Upham running around with spare ammo.

Poor old Steamboat Willie was Wehrmacht, but was mopped up by the SS and rearmed, after Captain Miller released him. OK, Miller pointed him towards the Allied lines and the SS unit must have been some distance away at the time (of course, in reality not even in Western Normandy at all).

I think Upham carries the belt the wrong way around. (Must check). Like the M60 gunner in the Washington Wall Memorial. Bullets should point out, so they do not fall out of the belt and do not dig into your neck. Yes, he did, although later changed over and over, due continuity errors;

Spr was a great visual experience.
I prefer not to think about the various logic problems.
The more i think about it, the more I just see problems.
It's a 3 pint-er.

Fury is a 4 or 5 pint-er.

One thing quite a few tank crews mention about panzerfausts though. There was a noticeable tendency for their inexperienced users to fire early at too long a range. As a result they would often fall short. By 1945 the german army was mostly not so uber. Otoh Fury is a static tank with no support rather than the asssaulting units the accounts are about.

I thought Fury wasn't all that great either, but I'm reminded of the 14th Cavalry Squadron during the Bulge that was frontally assaulted by the 18th Division and held their own at first because the German officers were pressed into the infantry and didn't know what they were doing. Neither did the conscripts. One unit had a German formation march up to them in formation, not expecting them to even be there. So Fury appears pretty stupid but stranger things did happen.

Trying to make sense of theatrical tactics is pretty much a senseless exercise. The best of breed IMHO was the Band of Brothers series. The first 20 minutes of SPR may be the best war sequence ever filmed. Fury sucked on so many levels. LT

This is the problem of films (movies) – they are there to entertain the masses and get people to watch them.
Flashy and emotive images achieve this and they have no need to follow history, so its a real gem when someone tries!

(I was trying to think of a war movie which is really historical but all I can come up with is 'Sink the Bismarck
YouTube link
which is only reasonably accurate!)

Lutjens as a fanatical Hitler worshipper is a bit much.

Certainly the suggestion is that, in reality, he suffered some kind of emotional collapse, as he was so pessimistic about the prospects of survival.

I doubt Band of Brothers will ever be beaten for sticking to the facts. OK, we will allow the spectacular but very CGI Normandy night drop. Schwimmer's Colonel was a bit exaggerated for the first episode. The odd fictional sub plot was fine. A masterpiece.