02-28-2005, 06:17 PM
02-28-2005, 10:39 PM
Must be the only time in your life you've cheered the Germans on for anything... wink
Don't mention the war regards...
Don't mention the war regards...
03-01-2005, 08:24 AM
Because, as we know from that movie, the British were never in the war... roll
03-01-2005, 12:59 PM
adeshell Wrote:
Because, as we know from that movie, the British were never in the war... :roll:
....this would be the war that started in 1941 when the brave Amurricuns came to save us all from having to learn German :roll:
03-01-2005, 02:23 PM
Personally, I feel for both sides.
There is an interesting part where some American soldiers shoot a couple of "Germans" who have surrendered but they can't understand what they are saying, missing the fact that they are in fact Polish and were probably forced into the German ranks.
Anyway, if you look on a map, Omaha Beach is several miles from Gold Beach (nearest British landing beach) and the Americans who met with the Royal Marine Commandos on June 7th had landed further east down the beach from Dog Green sector that Tom Hank's fictional unit landed so they would be unlikely to stumble across any Brits.
Even later in the film, they head away from the British sector so even less chance of meeting any Brits then.
If it bothers you that much, get Spielberg's HBO production "Band of Brothers" which features British paras in one episode and does them no disservice either. It is actually 100 times better than "SPR" anyway.
There is an interesting part where some American soldiers shoot a couple of "Germans" who have surrendered but they can't understand what they are saying, missing the fact that they are in fact Polish and were probably forced into the German ranks.
Anyway, if you look on a map, Omaha Beach is several miles from Gold Beach (nearest British landing beach) and the Americans who met with the Royal Marine Commandos on June 7th had landed further east down the beach from Dog Green sector that Tom Hank's fictional unit landed so they would be unlikely to stumble across any Brits.
Even later in the film, they head away from the British sector so even less chance of meeting any Brits then.
If it bothers you that much, get Spielberg's HBO production "Band of Brothers" which features British paras in one episode and does them no disservice either. It is actually 100 times better than "SPR" anyway.
03-03-2005, 06:04 AM
adeshell Wrote:
Because, as we know from that movie, the British were never in the war... :roll:
They do give the british army some lipservice in SPR
I'm paraphrasing but one character points out that the british army were slacking and that 'Monty' was overrated :roll: :wink:
03-03-2005, 12:56 PM
There is some truth in that.
Montgomery promised to capture Caen more or less on June 7th but several failed operations later, it really took pressure from the Americans (who had more or less completed their initial objectives in the Cherbourg Peninsula) who swept around it later, before the British could advance beyond it.
Montgomery's later "Operation Market Garden" was yet another failure, where again he had promised to end the war by Christmas.
His predecessor in North Africa had laid much of the groundwork for his victory at El Alamein and again, the American Generals were comparitevely far more dynamic in the Sicily and Italian campaigns.
My grandpa was in Monty's Desert Rats in WW2 and wouldn't say a bad word about him but I think when you look at it years later, objectively, he really wasn't that great of a General but at the time, he was the "Stormin' Norman" of the British Army. I guess the Americans, to their credit, never bought into the legend.
Montgomery promised to capture Caen more or less on June 7th but several failed operations later, it really took pressure from the Americans (who had more or less completed their initial objectives in the Cherbourg Peninsula) who swept around it later, before the British could advance beyond it.
Montgomery's later "Operation Market Garden" was yet another failure, where again he had promised to end the war by Christmas.
His predecessor in North Africa had laid much of the groundwork for his victory at El Alamein and again, the American Generals were comparitevely far more dynamic in the Sicily and Italian campaigns.
My grandpa was in Monty's Desert Rats in WW2 and wouldn't say a bad word about him but I think when you look at it years later, objectively, he really wasn't that great of a General but at the time, he was the "Stormin' Norman" of the British Army. I guess the Americans, to their credit, never bought into the legend.
03-03-2005, 07:54 PM
The Times the other day gave some compliments to the British Army in Iraq.
It said one of the reason there is relativly little trouble in the South of Iraq is that the British Army is better trained to handle the situation, because of their experience in N Ireland???
They seem to get on with the Iraqies better and are less inclined to shoot first and maybe ask question later like the US troops seem to do.
Going back to 1956 Suez Crisis my friend who was in the Royal Marine Commandoes said the French troops at the Suez landing shot every Arab or anyone in sight regardless.... evil
It said one of the reason there is relativly little trouble in the South of Iraq is that the British Army is better trained to handle the situation, because of their experience in N Ireland???
They seem to get on with the Iraqies better and are less inclined to shoot first and maybe ask question later like the US troops seem to do.
Going back to 1956 Suez Crisis my friend who was in the Royal Marine Commandoes said the French troops at the Suez landing shot every Arab or anyone in sight regardless.... evil
03-04-2005, 01:52 PM
johnr Wrote:
The Times the other day gave some compliments to the British Army in Iraq.
It said one of the reason there is relativly little trouble in the South of Iraq is that the British Army is better trained to handle the situation, because of their experience in N Ireland???
They seem to get on with the Iraqies better and are less inclined to shoot first and maybe ask question later like the US troops seem to do.
It said one of the reason there is relativly little trouble in the South of Iraq is that the British Army is better trained to handle the situation, because of their experience in N Ireland???
They seem to get on with the Iraqies better and are less inclined to shoot first and maybe ask question later like the US troops seem to do.
I think that there is some truth in that, but its worth noting that the British zone is mostly Shia and thus less hostile to us and more hostile for the insurgents.
Also when the Britsh moved out of area last November for a while, they seemed to experience many of the same problems as the US troops.
That said, there seems little doubt that there are fundamental differences in philosophy between the British and the Americans. I've known US veterans coming back from iraq to describe the British approach as 'cowadice' and 'appeasement' - which is both unfair and inaccurate but a clear indication of what at least some Americans believe is the 'correct' approach. :roll:
03-04-2005, 05:20 PM
Bit ironic as the British have yet to shoot at a convoy carrying a released Italian hostage who is now injured and one of her party are dead (
03-05-2005, 01:11 AM
Saw private ryan some time ago and was just reminded of it when there was the shouting about it being shown on tv without any cuts .
03-07-2005, 12:51 PM
Certain people here (in US) don't like to be reminded that people get shot, blown up, incinerated and killed in other excruciatingly painful ways during war and would rather bury it in the sand, than remind their fellow countrymen of the costs of battle.