Military Tank Expert Rates Tank Battles

[Kerensky]

I only clicked because it's... The Chieftain!

[o_t_d_x]

Was interesting, thanks for sharing.
Especially liked the "delousing" of a german tank with a pak.

Thats the problem with movies, if it looks "cooool", the film guys put it in even if its complete nonsense. I think i saw more movies with tanks fighting in cities then in open terrain.

Moving if you dont need to, is bad regarding witmann (german tank ace btw.), he prefered to lurk in cover and made many kills with that. Revealing your position unnecessarily, makes it easy to kill you. And you see it in nearly all movies with tanks.

Especially stupid is the fighting distance in movies: Hey my gun can fire over 1000m. and yours not. So i attack you close combat, so you can outflank me and hit my weak back.
But hey, a tank that nobody can see, isnt as cool as a tiger thats very close.

The numbers are a problem too: in ww2 they had tank armies. I think i have never seen one, in any movie. 2 tanks, a pak and a scout car, yeah thats the german attack force in a ww2 movie i saw lately. And of course they attacked a city, of course they didnt use the tanks as artillery, safe outside the range of the us infantry. No they use them in close combat in the village.... why dont they just kill themselfes ?

Realism in movies works even worse then in games it seems.

How long will i have to wait until i can see a realistic movie about the largest tank battles in history ?

[Retributarr]

Was interesting, thanks for sharing.

Thats the problem with movies, if it looks "cooool", the film guys put it in even if its complete nonsense. I think i saw more movies with tanks fighting in cities then in open terrain.

Realism in movies works even worse then in games it seems.

How long will i have to wait until i can see a realistic movie about the largest tank battles in history ?

Well!!!... am i now possibly speaking to the new-upcoming ... "Mr. Skorzazy!" to be???... [Name Spelling???].

With 'Computer-Graphics' being as good as they are right-now... you can just about put anything on the Screen!. I just watched a recent updated movie on the battle of 'Midway'... i couldn't tell that those Aircraft-Carriers and Planes were not real!... they looked very real to me!.

So here now!, contact "whom-ever" you need too... of course... after 1st doing your thorough research... and then present your findings with a proposal for this... "need-to-make-movie"... or!!!... find someone else who can do this for you!.

I would be one that would be very-excited to see it!.

[o_t_d_x]

The problem is not, that it cant be done with modern cgi.

The problem is, that hollywood isnt interested in the eastern front.

They always show us the western front, which is a small side show, compared to the real decisive battles in the east.
(regarding fighting on land, how many tank armys did the us beat in ww2 ? not many i am sure because we had no oil for big tank armys when the us landed in europe. And we had no competitive air force, so it was easy for the americans. Imagine thousands of tanks attack the beaches on dday supported by tousands of fighters and bombers, that would have been a bloodbath for the allies. And thats exactly why they waited till we were broken by the russians before they dared to land.) I think their help (lend lease pact) for the udssr was more important then their landings, because they came at a time, when hitler already had no chance. And the lend lease pact helped the russians to survive the difficult summer of 42.

Many people underestimate how much the us gave the russians. Muuuuch more then they give the ukraine now. 4 rocket launchers ??? What a joke. Send them 10000 tanks, 2000 rocket launchers, 10000 fighters, that would make a real difference. Or even better, give them nukes. Btw.: How long do you think will 4 rocket launchers survive in the ukraine, against an enemy that has long range capabilities with air force. rockets and satelite reconnaissance ?

And the other point is: americans dont want to spend money to make a movie or series (i would love to have a good eastern front series with high budget but nob. with competence will do that...), that first can only show how german defence lines butcher millions of russians. And then the heroic victory of communists ...

And the biggest problem: on the eastern front you can show the audience no heroic americans.
Conclusion: no big budget eastern front movie soon.

[Retributarr]

The problem is not, that it cant be done with modern cgi.

The problem is, that hollywood isnt interested in the eastern front.

They always show us the western front, which is a small side show, compared to the real decisive battles in the east.

Many people underestimate how much the us gave the russians. Muuuuch more then they give the ukraine now. 4 rocket launchers ??? What a joke. Send them 10000 tanks, 2000 rocket launchers, 10000 fighters, that would make a real difference. Or even better, give them nukes.
Can't do any of the above!... as "Russia's"... Rootin-Tootin-Shootin-Putin... has his finger on the Nuclear-Missle-Button-Trigger!. The 'Americans' can't give 'Ukraine' what you say... as they must maintain inventories for unexpected unfolding events in the Middle-East, North Korea and the Taiwan-Straights... Iran and so-on!.

Btw.: How long do you think will 4 rocket launchers survive in the ukraine, against an enemy that has long range capabilities with air force. rockets and satelite reconnaissance ?
So far the U.S. has sent at least 16 of these self-propelled-rocket-systems over to Ukraine, although the Russians have recently claimed to have destroyed 4 of them!, i have no confirmation of the Russian claim!??!. Germany, Britain and other countries have sent over similar systems as well!.

NEW!!!:
Here!... is just 'One-Example' of what's happening out there!.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/po ... r-AA10120q
Poland to buy hundreds of South Korean tanks, howitzers after sending arms to Ukraine
The agreement,will see Warsaw purchase 980 tanks based on the South Korean K2 model, 648 self-propelled K9 armored howitzers, and 48 FA-50 fighter jets, the ministry said.

The first 180 K2 tanks, made by Hyundai Rotem and equipped with auto-loading 120mm guns, are expected to arrive this year, with the production of 800 upgraded tanks starting in 2026 in Poland, according to the ministry.

The first 48 K9 howitzers, made by Hanwha Defense, are also expected to arrive this year, with delivery of a second batch of 600 due to start in 2024. From 2025 these will be produced in Poland, the ministry said.

The ministry said these armored vehicles would, in part, replace the Soviet-era tanks [Poland Supplied 200 Russian Soviet-Era Tanks] that Poland has donated to Ukraine to use in its fight against Russia.

[Retributarr]

How will Tank-Battle-Experts... now 'Rate' these changes in Tank-Battles?:
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/us ... np2sv1plus

US-donated HIMARS is the 'perfect' weapon thanks to poor Russian logistics forcing senior commanders in its range, military expert says

Around 17,000 anti-armor weapons have been sent to Ukraine in the last number of weeks and are being pressed into use against Russian tanks and other hardware. As of March 8, Ukrainian fighters [Only Fighter-Jets-Here!] had destroyed over 1,000 armored personnel carriers, 303 tanks, 120 artillery systems and 80 helicopters, The Kyiv Independent claimed.

"Alberque" said the HIMARS "is unbelievably accurate with no setup time. By the time Russians are even thinking about counter fire, the thing's gone."

The weapons have so far "made such a massive difference" for Ukraine, "Alberque" said.

Russia, he said, has many long-range weapons itself, but none as accurate as what Ukraine now has from the West:

The US has said it will send four more HIMARS, bringing the total to 16.

[o_t_d_x]

I thought that a counter missile strike is faster then a himars leaving its position. Especially if you use a warhead with a big destruction radius. Maybe i overrated response times of the russians.

Well i dont know much about modern (conventional) war. Always thought its like ww2 with more range and a bigger destruction radius and of course electronic warfare.

The russians have the finger on the nuclear button ? Who cares.
If they use it we ALL die, including themselfes. All problems solved for homo sapiens. Maybe it would be the best for our race. No more suffering for none.

[George_Parr]

The problem is not, that it cant be done with modern cgi.

The problem is, that hollywood isnt interested in the eastern front.

They always show us the western front, which is a small side show, compared to the real decisive battles in the east.
(regarding fighting on land, how many tank armys did the us beat in ww2 ? not many i am sure because we had no oil for big tank armys when the us landed in europe. And we had no competitive air force, so it was easy for the americans. Imagine thousands of tanks attack the beaches on dday supported by tousands of fighters and bombers, that would have been a bloodbath for the allies. And thats exactly why they waited till we were broken by the russians before they dared to land.) I think their help (lend lease pact) for the udssr was more important then their landings, because they came at a time, when hitler already had no chance. And the lend lease pact helped the russians to survive the difficult summer of 42.

Many people underestimate how much the us gave the russians. Muuuuch more then they give the ukraine now. 4 rocket launchers ??? What a joke. Send them 10000 tanks, 2000 rocket launchers, 10000 fighters, that would make a real difference. Or even better, give them nukes. Btw.: How long do you think will 4 rocket launchers survive in the ukraine, against an enemy that has long range capabilities with air force. rockets and satelite reconnaissance ?

And the other point is: americans dont want to spend money to make a movie or series (i would love to have a good eastern front series with high budget but nob. with competence will do that...), that first can only show how german defence lines butcher millions of russians. And then the heroic victory of communists ...

And the biggest problem: on the eastern front you can show the audience no heroic americans.
Conclusion: no big budget eastern front movie soon.

And why exactly should Hollywood be interested in the eastern front?
The US movie-industry exists to produce movies that make a ton of money. Most of that money get made in the USA itself, with additional money coming from nations that would watch western movies. They have no reason to cater to anyone but themselves. After all they want to make money.

People need a reason to watch something. Telling stories about people they don't care about isn't going to accomplish that. Just like people won't care about wars at the other end of the world compared to wars that are happening right at their doorstep. Americans tell war-movies from their own perspective, just like British, German an Russian movies do. It's extremely rare to see a movie try an tell the opposite view (e.g. something like Letter from Iwo Jima) of a battle they were involved in, and pretty much as likely to find one where the story is completely disconnected from the own nation (e.g. Valkyrie or Conspiracy). Most of the latter fall more into the category of artistic character movies with plenty of well known actors, and less in the category of big Hollywood blockbuster.


It also seems like you cling a bit too much to WW2-numbers when looking the militaries of today. That's not a good match when looking at modern conflicts though.
10000 tanks? The Americans don't have that many, and neither have the Russians (unless we are counting unuseable garbage that is rotting in depots), nor do the Ukrainians have anywhere near enough crews to man even 1000, much less ten times that amount.
10000 fighters? Even the USA only has about 13000 planes in its entirety, and only a small fraction of that is fighters. Even the Russians only use a limited amount of planes against Ukraine, because they can't possibly supply and maintain more than that. Not to mention arm the planes with bombs and rockets.

On both of these items, sending large quantities is absolutely useless. Not only are the numbers you list way too unrealistic, but Ukraine also doesn't have remotely enough tank-crews respectively pilots and ground-crews to make use of them. They also have no experience with western equipment, so you actually need to train them in the use first, or they would be completely useless. Which is currently done on some level.

The USA has send far more than just four rocket launchers to Ukraine. Quite a lot more in fact.There is also plenty of other long-range artillery available. And again, it doesn't seem like you are aware how stuff like MLRS and HIMARS even works. This isn't WW2 anymore. You don't need to spam the entire front with artillery if you have those kind of weapons. There are only a few hundred systems of these in use worldwide, and if you know the tendency of the US-military to spam overwhelming firepower, it really says all you need to know about them.
They are extreme long-range weapons with the ability to target multiple targes at once. They also can be relocated before their salvo even hits the enemy, making counter-battery-fire extremely unlike. Not that Russia has any artillery that could match that range in the first place. Airstrikes arent all that likely either, as Russia does its best to keep its planes as far in the east as possible, rarely venturing further west, and mostly staying away from areas that are covered by capable anti-air systems.

Looking at the rate at which Russian supply-depots have gone up in flames, and how their usage of artillery has collapsed in intensity lately, they have been extremely useful so far. It also seems to suggest that american surveillance given to Ukraine is vastly superior to what Russia is using.
If you add the fact that Russia is already down to using T-62s as replacement tanks, and making us of S-300 and S-400 anti-air systems against ground-targets, you kind of have to wonder what corruption did to the nation's stockpiles. The only thing they still seem to have quite a bit of, are artillery shells. Though seeing how their expenditure per months far exceeds their yearly production in shells, you have to wonder how long they will be able to keep up with that.

And no, you sure as hell don't send nukes to anyone. That would be the worst idea you could possibly have, outside of launching a nuclear first strike by yourself.

[o_t_d_x]

@George Parr: Thanks for your answer, maybe you havent read that i admitted in a posting above, that i know little about modern war. Thats why i wondered from the beginning, why the numbers in the ukrain war are so small in many aspects. Yes its very unlikely that hollywood makes a big series about the eastern front. Its a pity, i have band of brothers, the pacific and only the eastern camp. is missing:

1. They could show how poorly the communists and russians fought in summer 41. Or the idiotic storm attacks ag. the german def. lines. Isnt it always a prime agenda for america to let russians look bad ?

2. Out of an anti war movie perspective such an eastern front series would be important. Because no war movie showed the big scale, the mass butchering of hundreds of divisions. We lost over 20 million soldiers and the russians even more. I dont know of a movie, that shows this realistic and with modern effects.

3. So you say, that the us is much weaker nowadays, then in 45. They cant help in a big style, because they dont have enough weapons for all possible fronts. In ww2 this was no problem for the usa. Maybe because they had HIGH taxes for the rich, during ww2. So the us could afford everything.

4. If you dont understand what happened in russia, you dont understand the outcome of the war. Historical education could be another point.

5. A very well made tv series about the eastern campaign could make money. Put an "american" in as hero, that was raised in the us and answered the call home to germany. So the series could show the naiv illusions, this american with german roots has about germany and the horrible reality.
It was an american doku and the interview with an american ww2 expert, that woke the wish for a good eastern front movie in me: he described the battle of kursk in such dramatic words, that i instantly searched for a kursk movie and found none. (ok some russian movies but i dont endure russian movies, optical they learned a lot, but the syncro is so awful mostly, like the chinese movies...and the very unsubtle russia is the best propaganda thats alw. in, sucks too...)

6. But the most important reason is, if the us dont tells the story, russia does. Thats no problem now. But one day the russians might learn how to make good movies and series. And then we buy their movies and its them, who tell the story ähm the propaganda.

7. But the us sent nuclear weapons to germany. Is that a good plan ? Even if these are only old nukes, imagine a revolution in germany, the bombs are gone and voila, the era of nuclear terrorism begins. And dont think that germany is politically stable, it isnt. More and more people realise, that the people dont rule in germany. Our politicans make whats good for the us, and dont care about their own people. And of course you have still 5-10% Neonazis and much more sympathizers. And dont forget the right winged partys like afd, that have over 20% already in some areas. It can happen very fast, seemingly out of nowhere.

[dalfrede]

On why modern militaries are smaller:

Augustine's Law:
In the year 2054, the entire defense budget will purchase just one aircraft. This aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force and Navy 3-1/2 days each per week except for leap year, when it will be made available to the Marines for the extra day.

[adiekmann]

Good movie set on the Eastern Front is "Enemy at the Gates" https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0215750/?r ... lmg_act_63. German vs. Russian sniper aces during Stalingrad. Contains some fictional stuff, but what Hollywood movie doesn't?

[Korvessa]

Oops. Wrong thread
(content deleted)

[o_t_d_x]

Good movie set on the Eastern Front is "Enemy at the Gates" https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0215750/?r ... lmg_act_63. German vs. Russian sniper aces during Stalingrad. Contains some fictional stuff, but what Hollywood movie doesn't?

Of course i have seen this movie. Its great, but no tank armies here. Its a "small scale" going down on two men. I remember the beginning sequence, where the russian recrutes try to cross the volga and are bombed by stukas. Have to buy this movie.

Btw: Is this western front tank movie with Brad Pitt worth buying ? The short szene in the vid above looked good. But i heard a lot of negative things about it.

Oh i have another idea: a series about the best german and allied aces.

[jeannot le lapin]

Btw: Is this western front tank movie with Brad Pitt worth buying ? The short szene in the vid above looked good. But i heard a lot of negative things about it.

I like this movie, one of my favorite war movies

[robman]

Btw: Is this western front tank movie with Brad Pitt worth buying ? The short szene in the vid above looked good. But i heard a lot of negative things about it.

I like this movie, one of my favorite war movies

Definitely worth a watch. I found the ending to be tactically implausible, but the Sherman-Tiger duel is unforgettable.

[jeannot le lapin]

Btw: Is this western front tank movie with Brad Pitt worth buying ? The short szene in the vid above looked good. But i heard a lot of negative things about it.

I like this movie, one of my favorite war movies

Definitely worth a watch. I found the ending to be tactically implausible, but the Sherman-Tiger duel is unforgettable.

The tanks that shoot while rolling, is that realistic for the time ?

[robman]

I like this movie, one of my favorite war movies

Definitely worth a watch. I found the ending to be tactically implausible, but the Sherman-Tiger duel is unforgettable.

The tanks that shoot while rolling, is that realistic for the time ?

Probably not, but it sure is a great scene.

[euramer]

Personally, I really liked the drama of Fury, but by far the most realistic Tank battles are in the film "T34". It is not an American film... It shows much more about the different strategies to kill a Tank and what it is like to be inside.

[Bee1976]

The tanks that shoot while rolling, is that realistic for the time ?

Nope, usually they stopped for firing, at least if they wanted to hit something. OFC it IS possible to fire while roling, and it was done i.e. by soviet tank assaults but more for the effect and not to hit the enemy. And well, Fury is really entertaining but is lacking some realism.
Thats no problem (for me), a movie wants to entertain, and not to educate in the first line. To be honest a lot of movies would be much worse if they would show 100% realistic stuff.

[adiekmann]

The tanks that shoot while rolling, is that realistic for the time ?

No, in fact I read once an American report from during the war report how German tank crews always seemed to fire when stationary. And it makes sense why. They did have the best optics (Zeiss), but not the technology of today to keep the main gun trained on the target while moving. In fact, if I remember correctly, it was taught German tank doctrine.