question about film saving private ryan

i was watching saving private ryan, im curious, why did they have to land right in front of a giant machine gun fortress? surely the germans hadnt covered the entire coast of france with those, that would be thousands of miles of coast.

 

First, remember this was a dramatic film designed to entertain, not be a official history of the war. Second, the Germans knew the Allies had to use beaches of a certain size and consistency and therefor placed their defenses in these locations to make them as difficult as possible to cross. Lastly, amphibious landings, especially one the size of Overlord, are profoundly difficult to execute flawlessly. Too many moving parts to get mis-directed. If I recall correctly the "Utah" landing actually hit the entirely wrong piece of beach, which turned out to be a bit of providence as the original selected target was actually more stoutly defended then the beach struck.

 

It is actually true that the plan for OMAHA beach was frontal attacks on the defended draws. From the Corps and Army level view it was essential to clear the draws immediately in order to build up an all-arms force fast enough to repel the expected German counter attacks.

However there were few, if any, large concrete pillboxes on top of the bluffs above OMAHA beach. Such pillboxes were more likely to be found in the Pas de Calais and associated with coastal batteries. The pillboxes on OMAHA beach were at the base of the bluffs with a field of fire angled across the beach and not pointed straight out to sea.

Most attacks on the draws from the beach failed to make quick gains and cost high casualties. While troops that landed between the draws filtered up the bluffs and behind the draw defenders.

Study the maps from this book:
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-A-Omaha/index.html

It seems operational concerns overrode more appropriate tactical plans.

No matter the plan, given the nature of the bluffs overlooking the beach, OMAHA was bound to be different from all the other NEPTUNE beaches.

 

The spot where the five LVCP of Coy A of 116th Infantry landed was defended by around 10 Machine Guns. Two per landing craft. The Germans had a defended position every 1200m along the sector between the Orne and Vire Rivers. A significant slice of this coastline was comprised of clffs. Any invasion on this part of the Normandy coarst HAD to use the 4km of what we know as Omaha Beach because it offered a beach and exits for vehicles.

This was the 4th out of fifth in the German priorities for defence. 3rd was the East coast of the Cotentin peninsular where the positions were 800m apart, and above this were the port of Cherbourg and the Channel islands. It is a trubute to allied planning, training, determination and low level leadership that Omaha beach was so successful.. .

 

Actually, the Germans had covered an extraordinary amount of French coastline with defences - the Atlantic Wall. Much of which is still visible to this day. Ironically, Normandy was one of the less-heavily defended areas.......

 

While the Germans had covered the beaches, there was no depth in the omaha beach sector. There was a Regimental sized local reserve which spent its morning chasing in the wrong direction after decoy paratroops and then the afternoon in a failed attempt to eliminate the British beach head north of Bayeux. The German front line troops could cause casualties for a while, but once the US infantry had infiltrated between the positions the German line would fall.

There was more depth in the Cotentin peninsular where the German 91st Division was occupying the base behind the beaches - but two Us Airborne divisions dropped on them.

The only secotr where the Germans had any depth was at Caen which was occupied by a Panzer Division.

 

The large German fortifications were supposed to be 'nullified' by the US bombers. For some reason, the bombers were ordered to line up their bombing runs perpendicular to the beaches rather than 'down' the beaches. When the bombers came in on their bomb runs, the bombardiers saw the hundreds of landing craft close to the beaches and being afraid that they would bomb their own guys, they held off of dropping for a few more seconds. This resulted in most bombs falling well behind the beaches and the fortifications. A tough loss for dozens of French horses and cows!

Another benefit to having the bombs dropped on the beaches and bluffs above was to provided instant foxholes for those guys coming ashore. Instead, the guys found flat, open beaches and few places to hide.

 

I think that it was Eisenhower who said something along the lines that as soon as the first shot is fired, the best laid battle plans can be thrown out the window!

And if I'm not mistaken, Patton said something like, "A poor battle plan excuted violently today, is better than a great plan executed next week"!!

 

As an extra I would add that, like many such ventures, the naval and aerial assault meant to knock the worst of the defences failed to do so...

 

Considering the relatively "brief" period of time devoted to the pre-invasion bombardment, this is quite understandable. As the overriding concern was to keep the Germans guessing as to where the real invasion was to be.

In the Pacific, the US naval and air power would sometimes spend days bombarding a beach or island with little effect to the Japanese defenses.

 

People rightly give Eisenhower credit for authorising Op Overlord despite poor weather. The upside was that the Germans did not expect the invasion.

However, the downside was that poor weather meant that much of the aerial bombardment was cancelled and bombers were not allowed to attack targets within 1 Km of the coast. As is well known, the weather also prevented the DD tanks from being landed at the corrct time, and hampered fire from small gunships.

The assault on Omaha beach was a great success. V Corps suffered 2,500 casualties over two days out of 35,000 soldiers who landed on D Day. A casualty rate of 7% is lighter than many other famous frontal assaults on prepared positions. For example the successful assault on Vimy Ridge cost the Canadian Corps 10,000 casualties our of 100,000 attackers - 10%. Tough on Co. A of the 116th in the first wave, but an inevitable price to achive a foothold.. .

 

It was also the 'bad' weather that convinced the Germans that the invasion would be put off! They were so condfidant that the invasion was not coming around June 5/6th that they set up 'War Games" to play with the various 'what ifs' with regards to the eventual invasion!

Rommel even went back to Germany to celebrate his wife's 50th birthday! When he was notified on the morning of the 6th that it was 'On', it took his driver about 8+ hours to wildly drive back to Normandy!

In reading more of "D-Day The Battle for Normandy" by Antony Beevor just last night, I learned that the cutting of major phone lines was so successful that they had to resort to using radios and Bingo, Bletchley Park was de-coding them as fast as the Germans!

 

Well explained......

However, if you were standing right behind the ramp in the very first wave on Omaha, 'your' loss rate was a LOT higher than later in the morning! There are reports of some landing craft having only 1-2 guys getting off safely.

I just saw a Brit made TV show about Saving Private Ryan. In the movie, they show US built landing craft and it was explained that on Omaha, that it was actually Brit built landing craft that were used!

They went on to dispute the scene where the US sniper killed the German sniper, through his scope at 450 yards. They demonstrated that at 100 yards, it was possible but that at 450 it most likely was not.

Here's the interesting show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L29Wuo7NNoQ

 

I was curious enough to pull that Discovery channel test up - you can see the 4 minute clip at the link below. In the film, the shot had me rolling my eyes for a couple of reasons. One is that he's claiming 450 yards, when you can see the tower is much closer than that. On top of that, he's making the shot through the rain when the poor visibility would eliminate any possibility of such a precise shot.

The character is left-handed and has to break his sight picture every time he works the bolt - it's very unlikely a lefty would be a designated sniper just for that reason. He'd have to re-acquire his target each time he works the bolt. He's also using a Unertl 8X scope which is USMC issue. The army used a Weaver 2.5X scope. The sniper has one of those also and he switches back and forth between them in different scenes as if each scope would magically retain its zero. It wouldn't.



http://www.discoveryuk.com/web/the-true-story/video/?video=saving-private-ryan-impossible-sniper-shot

 

Its been a while since I've seen the movie, but in the last scene the scope clearly isn't zeroed; http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Saving_Private_Ryan#Faulty_Scope

 

Perhaps, but no sniper would switch scopes just for that reason. There are scope mounts today that allow you to do that and retain zero, but not back then. Back then you'd need to re-zero the rifle.

Anyway, I just find little mistakes like that annoying in a film.

 

Absolutely, but hey its Hollywood and it looks cool.....

 

I do agree the Barry Pepper shot is farfetched. However, one of the problems with many of these television shows trying to recreate and/or debunk history is that just because they cannot do it does not mean it cannot be done, or did not happen. The through the scope shot is a good example. It has showed up in a number of movies and TV shows. It did actually happen in Vietnam when Sgt. Carlos Hathcock shot North Vietnam's premier sniper through his scope while the enemy sniper was stalking him. (the guy doing the shooting on the Discovery show you posted even states this, though the actual shot occurred at much greater range than the 100 yards the narrator quotes). Mythbuster's another Discovery Channel show covered the shot on two seperate occasions, the first time saying the "Myth" was busted, then after much outrage by their viewers, who pointed out the shot did occur and was well documented (the enemy snipers body, and his rifle with the shot through scope were recovered and photographed, and Hathcock's spotter witnessed and verified the events) they revisited it and said it was plausible but unlikely. So because two former special effects people cannot replicate a shot made by one of histories premier shooters, it didn't happen? Yeah right. Most sources give Hathcock's shot as being made from 500 yards, it's been years since I read the book so I don't remember what he stated, but I'll assume they are correct. Hathcock and the sniper were stalking one another and Hathcock saw a "glint" and fired at it. It was only after the body and weapon were found that he realized he had shot him through the scope and surmised that the enemy sniper must have been sighting in on him when he fired as the only way it could have happened. Hathcock said at the time it was "a one in a million" shot. He had not been trying to shoot the sniper through his scope, that's how it turned out. Chance is a factor that cannot reliably be factored in. Things happen.
My biggest pet peeve is when they have a re-enactor/or re-enactors try to recreate something that happened and when they cannot replicate the event the "investigator" uses that fact to say the original event did not occur as recorded. "Well A.P. Hill couldn't have marched his division from Harper's Ferry to Antietam in the time generally accepted in period accounts because my 50-60 year old, out of shape, overweight, spend 5 days a week in an office and drive everywhere they go re-enactors can't do it". B.S.

Secondly, there are plenty of left handed snipers that can and do use rifles designed for right-handers. It just requires the teaching of the proper techniques. What is a bigger handicap when dealing with long guns is when a shooter is cross dominant. They are right hand dominant but left eye dominant or vice versa. So while being left-handed is not optimal, if the candidate is a highly proficient marksman, his handedness is secondary. This was also the case in WWII.

 

Very true. I made the same point in a letter published in History Today in response to their review of Saving Private Ryan which included platitudes that no one will ever have to endure such shocking experiences. The soldiers who followed H Jones in the Falklands and any section level battle in Iraq. It may just be a matter of scale. . I think the phenomena is called the Realities of War.

The same phenomena is also behind the other not so stunning revelation discovered by documentaries is that the assault on Omaha Beach did not go to plan. That is why the success in all of the battles is a reflection on the initiative, training and strenght of purpose of those who fought.

If you stand on the German positions at Omaha beach you can see why the position was strong and would only fall to an attack by infantry with as much support as they could get from armour and engineers. Many of the German concrete fortifications defences were sited in defilade, so they were protected from firepower from the sea. .