Is the movie "Saving Private Ryan" historically accurate?

[BCYL]

I think it's a great movie... but I wonder if they got the historic details right... does anyone know?

 

[SSP]

The story is probably fake. But I think everything else is pretty accurate. I don't have any sources to back up my answer though.

 

[BiggieN]

the story was made up but it was based on something else. The Sullivan brothers that were in the Navy during WW2. The beach Invasion and the various battles in the movie were as accurate as it can be. they hired alot of technical consultants that were veterans of WW2.

 

[Wallydraigle]

A long time ago they made a movie about the Sulivan brothers, I think it was called "The Fighting Sulivans". It was a pretty good movie.

 

[ZeroBurn]

historically speaking it would be accurate, however i'm sure the story portrayed of ryan, etc would just be made up.

 

[uncouth]

The ending of "SPR" and "The Seven Samurai" or "The Magnificant Seven" have interesting paralells.

all excellent movies regardless or their validity

 

[AndrewR]

So far the only historical inaccuracy I have read about is the final battle scene with the P-51 destroying that German tank on the bridge. Tank destroying P-51s weren't flown for the Normandy invasion apparently but were available afterwards. Minor detail (probably forced by the inability to find other more historically accurate planes).

Great movie.

 

[GoldenBear]

Speaking of which, anyone know what the D in D-DAY stands for?

 

[Czar]

Its a big Hollywood film, they can never ever make a historicly correct Hollywood film because the US public doesnt want to see a historic film, they want to see action, a hero, romance and ahemm.. babes....

 

[ZeroBurn]

nearly all historically based movies are hyped up or edited in some way for the hollywood audiance. anyone see the braveheart commentary? a lot of things were changed to make it more believable for the audiance, same w/ gladiator.

GoldenBear- D-Day is actually the official military term used to designate the day of the start of an operation. they'd count down until the day of the operation. today though it's just become reference to the operation in Normandy on june 4, 1944. the actual name of the operation for the invasion of Normandy was Operation Overlord.

 

[Windogg]

Much of the movie is based on historical anecdotes. For example, the part about issuing cigarettes and the GI responding, "No thanks, I don't smoke" to which the quartermaster replied, "Take them, after this you will."

I read "D-Day" by Stephen Ambrose and you realize most of the stories seemed to be pulled directly from his historical account.

One other inaccuracy was when Tom Hanks called the "Panther" a "Panzer". "Panzer" is the German word for "Armor".

To add to the "D-Day" definition, there is also "H-Hour" and so forth. All time is reference to the attack date. IE, before the attack the countdown does from D-Day - 5, D-Day - 3, etc.. Days subsiquent to the attack are D-Day + 1, D-Day + 2.

Windogg

 

[AndrewR]

Well, it wouldn't be an inaccuracy for Hanks to refer to a tank as a "panzer" -- it is a German tank after all even if it is also more specifically a "Panther".

The "D" in "D-Day" means "disembarkment".

 

[shiner]

If you want to read some real WWII history pick up a book by Stephen Ambrose.

To a someone with a history degree, like me, Ambrose is a legend!!!

 

[chuckieland]

I have been in the Army for two year
i can say this, the story line is made up
but on what they do is very real
this is not some kind of movie that made up all the details
when they attack on the first 20 minute of the movie, also how how the section is marching though the forest, city, and the section attack to take out the german machine gun. it is exactly the same as what army train their privates.

 

[Mday]

what biggie said. story line is fake but realistically portrayed otherwise. dunno much about the attack on that bridge where they found the private.

 

[dopcombo]

personally, the part in the movie where they were in the city and just walking and then something was spotted by the point guy and everyone just suddenly squatted down.... that just cracked me up. we did that so often during training squatting down became second nature when u did patrols.

I never realised the importance of everything they taught me in the army. some of the things in there actually made sense after watching some of these war related films.

 

[DABANSHEE]

No, Mustangs weren't use for tank busting duties in the Western European theatre. Actually the only Mustangs used for ground attack duties was the A36 Apache veriant or later derivities in the North African/Mediteranian theatre.

In reality it would have been an RAF Tornado/Typoon (edit: Typhoon) that would have taken out that tank in SPR, but we couldn't have that in a Hollywood movie, could we?

BTW, Andrew, is right, half the fresh conscripts at Normandy were half illiterate (thousands if not millions of Americans had to leave school early because of the depression) to them any tank that didn't have the distinctive high profile of a Sherman (or M3/M5) was a 'Panzer', until it was identified otherwise.

 

[Thorn]

uncouth, watch "Yojimbo" by Kurisawa and "Last Man Standing" with Bruce Willis... they're almost the same movie. Even have the same dialogue in certain parts... despite the fact the stories are seperated by 500 years, 5000 miles, and two completely different cultures. It's a riot.

The D-Day invasion was pretty accurate in SPR (so says my Grandfather who was there), although he said it wasn't that bloody and it lasted quite a bit longer. The rest, he suspects, is a fabrication.

 

[AndrewR]

I thought there was a Mustang variant flown later in the war. Hmmm, now that I think about it, I can't recall the armament configuration so I must be thinking of something else. I know more about German fighters than American, however. They could have used a P-47 though perhaps.

DABANSHEE: Is the "Typoon" some sort of British utensil? Phonetic spelling of a southeast Asian utensil for eating soup? Couldn't resist -- sorry.

Like I said, it was probably much easier and cheaper to use a P-51 than to have a more accurate plane doing the tank-killing. Given that P-51s are still flown all over the country, they are surely more plentiful than Typhoons, Thunderbolts, Lightnings (EXCEPTIONALLY RARE!), or whatever else could have been used. However, it's probably just that anti-British Hollywood conspiracy.

Thorn: Love the sig!