o_t_d_x wrote: ↑Thu Jul 28, 2022 11:03 am
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.
