A bit off topic but it is puzzling me

[matti467]

I have just watched the opening sequence of Saving Private Ryan and was puzzled to see weapons wrapped in what appeared to be clear polythene bags. Is this hostorically correct?
Matti

[tonyb]

Me too.
Tony.

[davec2]

Since when have film makers been historical or correct ??

How many six guns have you seen fire twenty rounds etc, etc, etc.

Dave.

[Keith Blakeman]

Originally Posted by matti467

I have just watched the opening sequence of Saving Private Ryan and was puzzled to see weapons wrapped in what appeared to be clear polythene bags. Is this hostorically correct?
Matti

I thought they only put johnnies over the muzzles.

[Cardiffbloke]

I can't imagine Steven Spielberg who's attention to detail in his films is forensic making such a crass mistake. They must have had such items or he wouldn't have gratuitously included them....

[wardog]

They existed- http://users.skynet.be/jeeper/page31.html

[grey_green_acorn]

There was a debate about this when the film was being made and in After the Battle Magazine Number 103 is a quote "Spielberg believed that plastic bags had not been invented in 1944 but there is written and photographic evidence. Pfc John Barnet of Company A, 1st Battalion 116th Infantry, records that "our rifles were wrapped in aprotective cellophane wrapper with an inflated tube to keep them afloat".

[Mike]

I wonder why the fictional character that lacked courage was named 'Upham' - Spielberg's must have been aware of Charles Upham VC & bar, the commonwealth's most highly decorated soldier for courage in WW2? why didn't he pick something else for a surname? It's not like it's a common surname.

And the reference to Montgomery being 'overrated' ??


Spielberg getting a few digs at the allies? a bit of propaganda 50 years late or my paranoia?



Charles Upham

Timothy Upham

[Keith Blakeman]

[QUOTE=Mike;61614]I wonder why the fictional character that lacked courage was named 'Upham' - Spielberg's must have been aware of Charles Upham VC & bar, the commonwealth's most highly decorated soldier for courage in WW2? why didn't he pick something else for a surname? It's not like it's a common surname.

And the reference to Montgomery being 'overrated' ??


Spielberg getting a few digs at the allies? a bit of propaganda 50 years late or my paranoia?


QUOTE]

It was the same in Band of Brothers. During the briefing for Market Garden when it's announced it's a British led operation there are groans all around. Anyway, it's common knowlege that the U.S won the war.

[Mike]

It was the same in Band of Brothers. During the briefing for Market Garden when it's announced it's a British led operation there are groans all around. Anyway, it's common knowlege that the U.S won the war.

Yes it's interesting 'who won the war?' question, of course it was a team effort, but probably the most underestimated and least discussed contribution and sacrifice (in the west anyway) came from Russia.
Anyway you got me thinking about critical turning points in the war, (or any war), always an interesting subject, most important for WW2 in my opinion was the Battle of Britain. Failure would have seen the probable success of operation Sealion, Britain under the jackboot, waiting on a combined Russian and US drive westwards through mainland Europe. (Assuming peace had not been declared with the 1000 year Reich.)

So before the US even entered the the war the critical success - the Battle of Britain had taken place, thus allowing the Normandy invasion to become a possibility. - So I'm saying a small bunch of Commonwealth pilots actually won the war. ( ok with a sprinkling of US and other nationals)

[Mike]

An even smaller group creating a turning point in history:

closing the gates of Hougoumont

less than a dozen individuals? upon which the entire history of Europe and the World rotated in a few minutes.

exciting stuff.

[Mike]

anyway gone off topic a bit there:

Moisture proof cellophane in use from 1927

Wiki

[jubilationtcornpone]

Mike, Keith, et. al.:

First, I am an American, served in the US Army and am fairly conversant in its history. Until today I had no idea who Charles Upham is. Can you name his American equivalent? I doubt that many Americans can today. Anyone who has served has to respect courage. A VC w/bar is beyond respect. Awe is a better word. Why Upham, not Smith or Jones, you will have to ask Speilberg. As for Monty - one requirement to be a general officer is to have an ego that is larger than normal. The senior allied generals in Europe under Eisenhower all met this requirement. Montgomery was not well thought of by most of the Americans, as well as some of the British. Only BG Gavin, to my knowledge, had anything good to say about him in Gavin's memoirs. Any general can be criticized. Having never been in that position I tend to be slow to do so. One thing non-American readers should remember is that, when the American generals got done blasting Monty, they tended to start on each other. To command at his level you must have the courage of your convictions. He did. He also had the strength of character to set them aside for the common cause. I find much to admire about Field Marshall Montgomery.

As far as our wining the war... If I had made such a statement during the war Ike would have sent me home. Well, maybe not at my level, but you get the idea. The only thing worse than having to fight with allies is having to fight without them. Was that Churchill? The thing to remember is that we, the allies, won. A good thing, I think.

Don

[davec2]

Very nicely put Don.

Regards.

Dave.

[Keith Blakeman]

Originally Posted by jubilationtcornpone

Mike, Keith, et. al.:

First, I am an American, served in the US Army and am fairly conversant in its history. Until today I had no idea who Charles Upham is. Can you name his American equivalent? I doubt that many Americans can today. Anyone who has served has to respect courage. A VC w/bar is beyond respect. Awe is a better word. Why Upham, not Smith or Jones, you will have to ask Speilberg. As for Monty - one requirement to be a general officer is to have an ego that is larger than normal. The senior allied generals in Europe under Eisenhower all met this requirement. Montgomery was not well thought of by most of the Americans, as well as some of the British. Only BG Gavin, to my knowledge, had anything good to say about him in Gavin's memoirs. Any general can be criticized. Having never been in that position I tend to be slow to do so. One thing non-American readers should remember is that, when the American generals got done blasting Monty, they tended to start on each other. To command at his level you must have the courage of your convictions. He did. He also had the strength of character to set them aside for the common cause. I find much to admire about Field Marshall Montgomery.

As far as our wining the war... If I had made such a statement during the war Ike would have sent me home. Well, maybe not at my level, but you get the idea. The only thing worse than having to fight with allies is having to fight without them. Was that Churchill? The thing to remember is that we, the allies, won. A good thing, I think.

Don

I do agree Don, my comments were tongue in cheek. It's Hollywood we should be blasting as for years and years films have had to have an American star to make them sell overseas (Battle of Britain, Dambusters, etc) and then the re-witing of history (The U-Boat/Enigma film whaterver that was called).