It's a matter of cost. Back then; NOBODY had replica tigers and it was cheaper and easier to rent from the Spanish, etc.Originally posted by dannybou
Battle of the Bulge..... it just amazes me that they make movies and don;t even take the time to use replicas of the real tanks. A Tiger is a Tiger, a Panther a Panther.
I've never even heard of it, when was it released? Anyone notable in it? I will definitely be looking for it.Originally posted by Marines
Actuallly its worth buying...it is one of the best war movies showing the German side of the war in Russia out there. I highly recommend it.
FYI it was taken form actual Wehrmacht and Waffen SS accounts and thier experiances during the battle of Stalingrad.
Semper Fi
I agree. There are some nice Tiger replicas now.Originally posted by FelixAlicea
At least Steven Speilberg and Tom Hanks placed artificial sides on some tracks to make them look like a Tiger I. See Saving Private Ryan. They were the only ones to come close.:crazy:
yeah! and in a couple of scenes it looks like all the tanks are driving around in some desert....it's all dusty and there are no trees and no snow......Originally posted by RStory
I still like Battle of the Bulge mainly for seeing M-24 Chafees fighting M-47 Pattons. Two relatively rare tanks to see in pictures.
Cheers!
:toast:
:horse:
Keep in mind when movies like these were made, the military of the host countries often supplied the equipment and troops to round out the opposing forces. So, a coat of paint would suffice to show who's side the tanks belonged to. Further, for Battle of the Bulge the shear numbers of tanks needed would have been too costly to create reproductions, or find originals. As far as originals went, most German armor had been sent to the scrap yard to be melted won, "swords into plowshares".Originally posted by dannybou
Battle of the Bulge..... it just amazes me that they make movies and don;t even take the time to use replicas of the real tanks. A Tiger is a Tiger, a Panther a Panther.
Yeah, but it did look dramatic.Originally posted by Fenrir
yeah! and in a couple of scenes it looks like all the tanks are driving around in some desert....it's all dusty and there are no trees and no snow......
stupid hollywood!:crazy:
when i was 10 it looked dramatic. as an adult i cant stand that kind of crap....Originally posted by Iron Mike USMC
Yeah, but it did look dramatic.
No argument here.Originally posted by Fenrir
when i was 10 it looked dramatic. as an adult i cant stand that kind of crap....
You noticed that too huh? I guess the wide sweeping plains of Belgium are a hidden marvel of the natural world. :laugh:Originally posted by Fenrir
yeah! and in a couple of scenes it looks like all the tanks are driving around in some desert....it's all dusty and there are no trees and no snow......
stupid hollywood!:crazy:
You really have to hand it to Speilberg and Hanks for attempting to realistic looking armor in SPR and BoB. In an episode of BoB the other night in one battle scene these armored vehicles were depicted with high degrees of accuracy.Originally posted by FelixAlicea
At least Steven Speilberg and Tom Hanks placed artificial sides on some tracks to make them look like a Tiger I. See Saving Private Ryan. They were the only ones to come close.:crazy:
Picture of a genuine Tiger (as taken from my Bovington article for ACG):Originally posted by Lance Williams
You really have to hand it to Speilberg and Hanks for attempting to realistic looking armor in SPR and BoB. In an episode of BoB the other night in one battle scene these armored vehicles were depicted with high degrees of accuracy.
Tiger I
Jadgpanther
Stug III
Marder II
Sherman
Cromwell
These gentlemen have elevated the standard so that for many of us older war movies just don't seem very real.