U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-06-2019, 03:53 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
11,584 posts, read 3,963,981 times
Reputation: 7172

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
Even the film Saving Private Ryan had a dig a Montgomery. It is unrelenting. American historian David Glantz studied the eastern front, who came up will some amazing facts about massive forgotten tank battles. Glantz is one of the leaders on the Soviet war. Glantz would have presentations on aspects of the eastern front. He said that many Americans would say he was unpatriotic, for doing what he was doing. He never sold many books for sure and knew he would not. He ran into a wall indoctrination. If Glantz wanted to make money he would have over-exaggerated the US contribution, putting Patton as number 1 and slagged off Montgomery and the British in general. The money would have rolled in. A couple of British authors do that, Hastings and Beevor. They are now quite wealthy. They command very high fees for giving talks.

A US author named William Weidner wrote a book titled, Eisenhower & Montgomery At the Falaise Gap. This book is full of many gross deliberate inaccuracies it becomes laughable. He was jumping onto the US anti Monty/British bandwagon. An American named Koba ripped this guy to bits in the comments section, with another guy named Solar Man. The author engaged Koba then was ripped to pieces so much he deleted his own posts. Here are just some of the comments:

https://www.amazon.com/EISENHOWER-MO...ews-filter-bar

Weidner's book is just one of many like that.
Whilst Saving Private Ryan was an enjoyable film, it wasn't really accurate in a lot of ways.

To start with it wasn't some American operation, indeed of the 156,000 troops landed on D-Day, over 80,000 were British and American, and there are other facts noted in the quote below regarding D-Day.

In the film the landing craft is even operated by an American, which would have been unlikely and I think a lot of scientists have already debunked bullets hitting people in water, although men did die because by drowning due to be weighed down by equipment. The sniper shot, in the Chuch bell tower scene was also impossible, however overall it was a decent enough film.

As for the whole the war was one by Russia, thge Americans are downplaying theor own contribution, by such an analysis and any criticism of Montgomery and also does a disservice to those brave British and Commonwealth soldiers who fought under Montgomery in North Africa, Sicily, D-Day and the subsequent battles in Europe. Montgomery was trusted by Churchill and although he took risks (as do all great military commanders), he was overall a very successful General.

Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Day: Debunking the myths of the Normandy landings

The plan for Operation Overlord -- as D-Day was codenamed -- was largely that of Gen. Bernard Montgomery, the land force commander.

The Royal Navy had overall responsibility for Operation Neptune, the naval plan. Of the 1,213 warships involved, 200 were American and 892 were British; of the 4,126 landing craft involved, 805 were American and 3,261 were British.

Whilst two-thirds of the 12,000 aircraft involved were also British, as were two-thirds of those that landed in occupied France.

Despite the initial slaughter at Omaha, casualties across the American and British beaches were much the same.

This is not to belittle the U.S. effort but rather to add context and a wider, 360-degree view. History needs to teach as well as entertain.

D-Day: Debunking the myths of the Normandy landings - CNN


Last edited by Brave New World; 05-06-2019 at 04:04 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-06-2019, 06:55 AM
 
11,977 posts, read 17,489,276 times
Reputation: 6077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
Whilst Saving Private Ryan was an enjoyable film, it wasn't really accurate in a lot of ways.

To start with it wasn't some American operation, indeed of the 156,000 troops landed on D-Day, over 80,000 were British and American, and there are other facts noted in the quote below regarding D-Day.

In the film the landing craft is even operated by an American, which would have been unlikely and I think a lot of scientists have already debunked bullets hitting people in water, although men did die because by drowning due to be weighed down by equipment. The sniper shot, in the Chuch bell tower scene was also impossible, however overall it was a decent enough film.

As for the whole the war was one by Russia, thge Americans are downplaying theor own contribution, by such an analysis and any criticism of Montgomery and also does a disservice to those brave British and Commonwealth soldiers who fought under Montgomery in North Africa, Sicily, D-Day and the subsequent battles in Europe. Montgomery was trusted by Churchill and although he took risks (as do all great military commanders), he was overall a very successful General.
The film does not claim D-Day was an American operation. The plot is concerned with a solitary American platoon, not some made up pan-Allied unit like in Where Eagles Dare, itself a stretch and then some.

Furthermore, the Allies were all assigned their own zones of operation on D-Day. Most American soldiers would not have seen their British, Canadian, etc counterparts while fighting so you do not see them in the movie. Those demanding inclusiveness in WWII movies should check out, ***The Longest Day.

The boat pilot being American is nitpicking exemplified. The bullets in the water and the sniper shot are Hollywood. I would think the entire premise is a bit of a stretch. Would it be worth it to go in an extract one soldier? And of course it has the obligatory Spieldberg ending full of syrup. It's what he does.

**** I love the scenes with the British soldiers and the piper moving in. You are flamboyant lot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2019, 08:17 AM
 
Location: London
4,360 posts, read 3,647,052 times
Reputation: 1982
Many US troops were put down by British landing craft. The British craft were superior having armour protection for the helmsman. Many of the wooden US Higgins boats had the helmsman killed before they reached the beach. The US Rangers who scaled the cliffs were trained in Wales by the Commandos. Indeed one of them went with them. They were put down by Royal Navy men.

On Omaha the US and Royal Navy frigates and destroyers cleared the German guns with close-in naval gunfire. US ships failed to knock out the German guns in the pre-invasion bombardment, overshooting. The US did not use the Funnies, which was a massive mistake.

Operation Overlord was essentially a British operation. The British planned it, had three of the five beaches, were in command of all naval, air and ground forces and supplied the bulk of equipment, the Mulberry harbours, Pluto, and the men on D-Day. Some numbers were previously given. The British engaged the vast majority of the German armour destroying about 90% of it. Montgomery gave the US armies primarily an infantry role.

Ironically the British did not want to land in northern France, the US insisted on that.

Saving Private Ryan is regarded as highly factual, and realistic, in the first 30 minutes. That is incorrect.
"At dawn, on the morning of the sixth of June, 1944, two hundred and twenty-five Rangers jumped off the British landing craft and ran to the bottom of these cliffs."
- Ronald Reagan

Last edited by John-UK; 05-06-2019 at 08:31 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2019, 08:30 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
11,584 posts, read 3,963,981 times
Reputation: 7172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth View Post
The film does not claim D-Day was an American operation. The plot is concerned with a solitary American platoon, not some made up pan-Allied unit like in Where Eagles Dare, itself a stretch and then some.

Furthermore, the Allies were all assigned their own zones of operation on D-Day. Most American soldiers would not have seen their British, Canadian, etc counterparts while fighting so you do not see them in the movie. Those demanding inclusiveness in WWII movies should check out, ***The Longest Day.

The boat pilot being American is nitpicking exemplified. The bullets in the water and the sniper shot are Hollywood. I would think the entire premise is a bit of a stretch. Would it be worth it to go in an extract one soldier? And of course it has the obligatory Spieldberg ending full of syrup. It's what he does.

**** I love the scenes with the British soldiers and the piper moving in. You are flamboyant lot.
I think John-UK was right, it did have a dig at Montgomery, and certain parts of it were unrealistic, however I said overall it was a decent enough and enjoyable film.

I have seen numerous other WW2 films, however the reason people cite Saving Private Ryan because of the realistic special effects and battle scenes at the start of the movie, although as you righly point ot parts of it are pure Hollywood, and John-UK also pints this out in his post above.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2019, 10:18 AM
 
Location: London
4,360 posts, read 3,647,052 times
Reputation: 1982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
Despite the initial slaughter at Omaha, casualties across the American and British beaches were much the same.
The difference was that the other beaches were making progress, while US troops at Omaha were pinned down, to be taken off and put down on a British taken beach. Just before Bradley was to pull them out, US troops started to make progress, so Bradley sat back for a while before making his decision. Only on D-Day+3 were all the objectives of Omaha achieved.

The ballpark casualty figure for D-Day is 10,000 men, including 2,500 KIA for beaches, airborne, naval and air.

Sword Beach:
1,000 casualties.
Gold Beach.
1,000 casualties.
Juno Beach:
915 casualties.

British losses were 700 casualties in the airborne assault.

Omaha Beach:
2,000 casualties.
Utah Beach:
197 casualties.

US losses were 2499 casualties in the airborne assault.

There are still disagreements on the figures as it was difficult to pin figures down.

Last edited by John-UK; 05-06-2019 at 11:16 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2019, 10:26 AM
 
11,977 posts, read 17,489,276 times
Reputation: 6077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
I think John-UK was right, it did have a dig at Montgomery, and certain parts of it were unrealistic, however I said overall it was a decent enough and enjoyable film.

I have seen numerous other WW2 films, however the reason people cite Saving Private Ryan because of the realistic special effects and battle scenes at the start of the movie, although as you righly point ot parts of it are pure Hollywood, and John-UK also pints this out in his post above.

John-Bull is a nationalistic vulgarian.

Yes, it had a dig at Monty- "overrated" was the word if I recall correctly. You could contact the screenwriter and admonish him, but I doubt you really care all that much. I am sure plenty of British soldiers said much worse about the man just as other soldiers took potshots at their respective leaders.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2019, 11:20 AM
 
438 posts, read 286,733 times
Reputation: 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
Montgomery was the finest general in WW2. He never suffered a reverse. He planned and controlled all the ground armies in Normandy. He had to take command of two US armies in the Bulge. He had more experience as a general than all the US generals in the ETO put together. Literally.

Do some reading. Some basic facts would be nice.
For you to label him the finest general is laughable. That's your opinion. He wanted overall commend so he could take credit for the US successes. With so much experience you would think he wouldn't of been such an idiot with his Market Garden plan, but he was. How many men died needlessly because of his stupidity and arrogance?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2019, 11:25 AM
 
Location: London
4,360 posts, read 3,647,052 times
Reputation: 1982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth View Post
John-Bull is a nationalistic vulgarian.
So you do not like facts. I notice the film never mentioned St.Lo, which was to be taken on D-Day+5, 11 June by US forces. But they didn't capture it until the 18 July. 37 days late. With little German armour in the US sector.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2019, 11:44 AM
 
Location: London
4,360 posts, read 3,647,052 times
Reputation: 1982
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjinnj View Post
For you to label him the finest general is laughable. That's your opinion.
I do not go by opinion. If I do, I say it is opinion. You need to swat up on history, and not go by Hollywood.

Montgomery's record is outstanding. In Normandy Monty was in charge of all Allied armies also planning the operation. The British were in command of the land, sea and air aspects of the operation. The forces directly in control of Monty took on the German heavy armour destroying 90% of it.

Monty never suffered a reverse moving 1,000 miles through nine countries from Egypt to Denmark taking all in his path. He was a general over generals. Montgomery was by far the most successful western allied commander of WW2. Monty fought more battles, took more ground and engaged more elite German divisions than any other general. Monty was the man the Americans ran to after their retreat during the German Ardennes offensive, having to take control of the US First and Ninth armies. No other general in the western allied armies possessed his experience or expertise in dealing with the Germans. Rommel's forces were about to annihilate U.S forces after Kasserine in Tunisia, with Montgomery coming up their rear forcing them to turn 180 degrees.

Monty stopped the Germans in every event they attacked him.
  • August 1942 - Alem el Halfa
  • October 1942 - El Alamein
  • March 1943 - Medenine
  • June 1944 - Normandy
  • Sept/Oct 1944 - Holland
  • December 1944 - Battle of the Bulge
Not on one occasion were Monty's ground armies, including U.S. armies under his control, pushed back into a retreat by the Germans. He took the surrender of all German forces in NW Europe on Lüneburg Heath.

You must learn to give respect to those who maintained your freedoms.

Last edited by John-UK; 05-06-2019 at 12:23 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2019, 11:58 AM
 
Location: London
4,360 posts, read 3,647,052 times
Reputation: 1982
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjinnj View Post
With so much experience you would think he wouldn't of been such an idiot with his Market Garden plan, but he was. How many men died needlessly because of his stupidity and arrogance?
The Market Garden myth has been covered in post 33. Look:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/55101029-post33.html

Men under Monty, US and British, had a better chance of survival than under US command for sure. US generals treated their own men as cannon fodder.
  • Bradley with 2,000 on Omaha beach alone;
  • Hurtgen Forest defeat (33,000);
  • Lorraine stall (52,000);
  • The Bulge retreat (100,000).
That is not counting the others either.

The British with the Canadians invented the armoured personal carrier in WW2 to save men's lives, and to make fighting more efficient. It was called the Kangaroo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangar...sonnel_carrier)

Last edited by John-UK; 05-06-2019 at 12:19 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top