It was probably slightly more realistic than Kelly's Heroes - it looked very realistic and there was less of the "Arr - ya got me!" posing when people got shot.Is it less realistic than Kelly's Heroes or is there something else about it that sucks?
One recent film "Fortress of War", a Russian film about the Soviet defence of Brest, though subtitled, is well worth watching. While there is a nationalistic slant it's not particularly intrusive, for a war film anyway.The days of movies like A Bridge Too Far are probably over.
While I have not seen it yet, HEAT produces a semi-fluid slug that takes some distance to disperse/disrupt. Along with the armour spall there is a chance of a significant lump remaining to splatter someone. In general most of the anti personnel effect is from small particles and high temperature.Finally watched this last night. Hmmm.....not a very good movie. Put it in the category of Battle of the Bulge quality of war movie. Some scenes were good, but the ultimate scene at the end was pretty cheesy with the lighting and killing scores of Germans like an old fashion cowboys and indian movie. What was up with the PF shot at the end that went through the loader. Ok, maybe an AP round would do that, but that is a HEAT round.
Maybe not THE worst, there are some pretty bad ones out there, but it isn't nowhere near the "good" list either I will agree with you on that."Battle of the Bulge" is on my list of worst war movies ever.
Certainly a disappointing film, but I'd have to say that Breakthrough (1979) is worse, being a "sequel" to Cross of Iron and all."Battle of the Bulge" is on my list of worst war movies ever.
The Geneva Convention actually protects the right of soldiers to wear enemy uniforms as a legtimate ruse d'guerre. You are not, however, permitted to fight in them. The history of the Brandenburg Commandos discusses this question of legality in detail. Whether soldiers in the field are aware of these distinctions or not is of course another story. I presume the German soldiers captured in the Ardennes while wearing American uniforms were actually fighting when captured. Though perhaps there would be interesting definitions of "fighting" as well.I haven't seen this movie, but wearing the uniform of the enemy as a ruse is explicitly forbidden by the law of land warfare. Regardless what the "modern" interpretation of the Geneva Convention protections may be, if you are captured on the battlefield wearing the uniform of the enemy, expect to be summarily executed as a spy or an illegal combatant because that's most likely what is going to happen. Your "rights" mean exactly bupkis at that point.
Ok. I saw the rest. Overall impression is pretty bad.Fury is out on cable now in my house so I just caught the last third or so. Tank disabled at a crossroads. SS company or battalion approaching. Tank crew decides to stay and fight it out. Crock of sh#t. They should have headed for the trees, leaving behind a few booby-trapped German bodies. These Nazis had crates of panzerfausts, which just didn't seem to work very well. And, as has been noted, Wardaddy does just fine with three torso hits from a sniper. In other words, this appears to be an unrealistic war film. But I'll look for the rest of it because I'd like to see that Tiger.
It's a meaningless distinction since military forces, regardless of whatever activities they are carrying out at the time, are considered combat forces as defined by the law of land warfare. If you wear the uniform of the enemy, then it is legitimate for the to assume you are trying to conceal your status as an enemy combatant.The Geneva Convention actually protects the right of soldiers to wear enemy uniforms as a legtimate ruse d'guerre. You are not, however, permitted to fight in them. The history of the Brandenburg Commandos discusses this question of legality in detail. Whether soldiers in the field are aware of these distinctions or not is of course another story. I presume the German soldiers captured in the Ardennes while wearing American uniforms were actually fighting when captured. Though perhaps there would be interesting definitions of "fighting" as well.
In practice, it has been authorized to make use of national flags, insignia, and uniforms as a ruse. The foregoing rule (HR, art. 23, par. (f)) does not prohibit such employment, but does prohibit their improper use. It is certainly forbidden to employ them during combat, but their use at other times is not forbidden.
Members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict and members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces lose their right to be treated as prisoners of war whenever they deliberately conceal their status in order to pass behind the military lines of the enemy for the purpose of gathering military information or for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property. Putting on civilian clothes or the uniform of the enemy are examples of concealment of the status of a member of the armed forces.
https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cou_us_rule62Under the US War Crimes Act (1996), violations of Article 23(f) of the 1907 Hague Regulations are war crimes.
Here is Article 24 from the convention:It's a meaningless distinction since military forces, regardless of whatever activities they are carrying out at the time, are considered combat forces as defined by the law of land warfare. If you wear the uniform of the enemy, then it is legitimate for the to assume you are trying to conceal your status as an enemy combatant.
I used to teach the law of land warfare as senior instructor at the Army's largest NCO academy. According to the law of land warfare and US Army field manual FM 27-10, soldiers wearing the uniform of the enemy as a ruse during combat are subject to losing their status as prisoners of war. Basically, if you get captured wearing the uniform of the enemy on a battlefield, expect to be executed as a spy. Which you probably will be. And that's exactly what the class materials provided to me said, that's what we taught, and that's what the soldiers were tested on.
https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cou_us_rule62
Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp#art23Art. 24.
Ruses of war and the employment of measures necessary for obtaining information about the enemy and the country are considered permissible.
29 & 30Art. 23.
In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden -
To employ poison or poisoned weapons;
To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
To declare that no quarter will be given;
To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;
To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;
To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;
To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war.
I don't doubt the United States has chosen to interpret these articles differently than others.Art. 29.
A person can only be considered a spy when, acting clandestinely or on false pretences, he obtains or endeavours to obtain information in the zone of operations of a belligerent, with the intention of communicating it to the hostile party.
Thus, soldiers not wearing a disguise who have penetrated into the zone of operations of the hostile army, for the purpose of obtaining information, are not considered spies. Similarly, the following are not considered spies: Soldiers and civilians, carrying out their mission openly, entrusted with the delivery of despatches intended either for their own army or for the enemy's army. To this class belong likewise persons sent in balloons for the purpose of carrying despatches and, generally, of maintaining communications between the different parts of an army or a territory.
Art. 30.
A spy taken in the act shall not be punished without previous trial.
This is what I was saying. If you're saying the U.S. Army dismisses the Hague Convention when dealing with legitimate ruse d'guerre - there are probably many chapters of the Hague Convention that are (or have been) interpreted with a wide latitude.It is certainly forbidden to employ them during combat, but their use at other times is not forbidden.
Well, no, the panzerfaust had a very large explosive shaped charge. The concussion was terrific. So, if it penetrated armor, like the turret side armor in the movie, it would then have exposed the interior to the focused shaped metal, heat, metal splatter AND concussion (pressure). The sound alone would have debilitated the turret crew. Instead, the slob loader fell into their waiting arms...so touching. The pressure wave in an enclosed space would have taken them out of the fight as far as a 'team'.While I have not seen it yet, HEAT produces a semi-fluid slug that takes some distance to disperse/disrupt. Along with the armour spall there is a chance of a significant lump remaining to splatter someone. In general most of the anti personnel effect is from small particles and high temperature.