New tank film compared to Das Boot

[Safe-Keeper]

http://www.filmweb.no/kino/article226889.ece?show=trailer

"Not since Das Boot has the movie theatre been more claustrophobic". Libanon takes place in a tank and the camera never seems to never venture outside the vehicle's armour, much in the same way it was confined within the pressure hull of U-96 in Das Boot. I really want to see this film.

[stabiz]

Looks a bit cheezy to me, with all the condemning looks on peoples eyes through the optics. Yes, we know war is bad, but I dont need to be told like I am retarded. You liked that explosion? Look what happened to this pregnant lady who was about to solve cancer and this bus full of nuns. I need a war movie without violins. /rant

[Jimbuna]

Looks interesting....I wonder if it will be anything like 'The Beast Of War'

http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0094716/

[OneToughHerring]

Also reminds me of Waltz with Bashir (http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt1185616/). Same war, the Lebanon conflict in both. I guess that war is still very much in Israelis mind.

[Safe-Keeper]

Looks a bit cheezy to me, with all the condemning looks on peoples eyes through the optics. Yes, we know war is bad, but I dont need to be told like I am retarded. I need a war movie without violins. /rantYeah, I didn't like that either. Not just all the civilians shown, but the fact that so much of the trailer was reticule shots. Das Boot would've been terrible if a large portion of it was a periscope view of the sea outside. To be honest I thought the reticule and black outline was just added to the footage for the trailer.

You liked that explosion? Look what happened to this pregnant lady who was about to solve cancer and this bus full of nuns. I'm sick in the head or something, I guess, because I found that hilarious:rotfl2:.

[breadcatcher101]

Years back there was a movie about a Russian tank called "The Beast". It was pretty good.

I wouldn't want to be in a tank, no thank you.

[GoldenRivet]

Looks a bit cheezy to me, with all the condemning looks on peoples eyes through the optics. Yes, we know war is bad, but I dont need to be told like I am retarded. You liked that explosion? Look what happened to this pregnant lady who was about to solve cancer and this bus full of nuns. I need a war movie without violins. /rant

agreed.


looks like a good film, but they overplayed the "you bastards, you killed kenny" thing

[Jimbuna]

Years back there was a movie about a Russian tank called "The Beast". It was pretty good.

I wouldn't want to be in a tank, no thank you.

#3 :DL

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Years back there was a movie about a Russian tank called "The Beast". It was pretty good.

I wouldn't want to be in a tank, no thank you.

I'd much prefer being in an A-10 Warthog.

[nikimcbee]

So if it's like Das Book, do they do they dancing scene?:hmmm:

[XabbaRus]

Looks rubbish to be frank.

[Dowly]

I'm pretty sure the reticle was just for the trailer, it doesn't make any sense if they have it in the movie. Prolly will check it out, who knows how good it'll be. :hmmm:

[Jimbuna]

So if it's like Das Book, do they do they dancing scene?:hmmm:

I wonder if they do the peeing scene :hmmm:

[nikimcbee]

"Give 'em a whiff of the gun-powder!":haha:

[Weiss Pinguin]

Looks a bit cheezy to me, with all the condemning looks on peoples eyes through the optics.
Yeah that was kind of goofy. Everything else was alright, but those bits were somewhat ridiculous. Hopefully the movie is better about that kind of thing.

I wouldn't want to be in a tank, no thank you.
Agreed, it must take some real brass ones to go into combat in one of those.

[Schroeder]

I think I'd rather be in a tank than just an unprotected soldier with a rifle in my hands. Thank god I only had to experience the latter in peace time.:dead:

[nikimcbee]

I think I'd rather be in a tank than just an unprotected soldier with a rifle in my hands. Thank god I only had to experience the latter in peace time.:dead:


That's why you sign up for the airforce.:haha:

[Jimbuna]

That's why you sign up for the airforce.:haha:

Or the Pay Corps :O:

[Task Force]

Wish they would do a movie about WW2 panzers... I think they could make a good movie about a ww2 tank crew...

[UnderseaLcpl]

Wish they would do a movie about WW2 panzers... I think they could make a good movie about a ww2 tank crew...

I wish they'd do the true story of Michael Wittmann. More amazing stuff happened in his career than in every hollywood BS war movie combined. I wonder why they think they need to make stuff up when the truth is infinitely more bizarre and interesting:hmmm:

[STEED]

Wish they would do a movie about WW2 panzers...

I hope its....

The Battle of Kursk.

[Happy Times]

I wish they'd do the true story of Michael Wittmann. More amazing stuff happened in his career than in every hollywood BS war movie combined. I wonder why they think they need to make stuff up when the truth is infinitely more bizarre and interesting:hmmm:

He was SS, that film wont get financed in Hollywood or Germany, it would make a good one tough.

Same with some of the fighter aces.
But you could imagine a movie about Hans-Joachim Marseille getting finacing, he was a personality, partied all night and flew with a hangover.:|\\
And it would have the non Hollywood Das Boot ending.

[Happy Times]

I think I'd rather be in a tank than just an unprotected soldier with a rifle in my hands. Thank god I only had to experience the latter in peace time.:dead:

You cannot hide in a tank, i consider surviving a war as a tanker very hard.:hmmm:

[Schroeder]

You cannot hide in a tank, i consider surviving a war as a tanker very hard.:hmmm:
Depends on what you are up against. I believe that no American tanker died during the last Iraq war although some Abrams have been disabled by enemy fire. The crew protection of modern MBTs is somewhat better than it used to be in the old days. If you are just an infantry man pretty much everyone and everything can kill you.

[Happy Times]

Depends on what you are up against. I believe that no American tanker died during the last Iraq war although some Abrams have been disabled by enemy fire. The crew protection of modern MBTs is somewhat better than it used to be in the old days. If you are just an infantry man pretty much everyone and everything can kill you.

True but even in Libanon when faced with modern missiles and prepared defence the situation was different.

Or a terrain like Finland, you are channeled in to a killing zone where everything is after you.

Minefields in the front, sides, new ones launched by MLRS in your rear.

Missiles and RPGs open up on you, artillery and mortars firing anti-tank mutions.

Ground attacking planes and helicopters hunt for you.

You are the number one target for everyone in that area.

I wanted first to go to Armor but then i came to my senses and went Recon.:smug:

Nicer to ambush than to get ambushed.

[Jimbuna]

I surrender http://www.olemiss.edu/courses/math268_summer/white_flag.gif

[August]

I'd much prefer being in an A-10 Warthog.

Heck yeah. Deliver ones ordinance on the target and be back at base in time to shower and take that hot nurse with the big ta ta's to the USO show. :DL

[Task Force]

I surrender http://www.olemiss.edu/courses/math268_summer/white_flag.gif

Hmm, and I thought you were from north of the channel Jim. lol

[Task Force]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDX7IHP925U&feature=related
was looking up someting on youtube earlyer, came accrost this. Pretty good film with some tanks in it.:yep:

[nikimcbee]

I surrender http://www.olemiss.edu/courses/math268_summer/white_flag.gif

I never you you were French?:haha:

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Heck yeah. Deliver ones ordinance on the target and be back at base in time to shower and take that hot nurse with the big ta ta's to the USO show. :DL

The cool thing about flying the Warthog in combat is that by the time you'd be deployed, our side would already have at least air superiority, possibly air supremacy. There wouldn't be much to challenge you in the air, and the damn thing is so heavily armored against ground fire you're relatively safe.

[UnderseaLcpl]

You cannot hide in a tank, i consider surviving a war as a tanker very hard.:hmmm:

I have no doubt. I always sink the tankers first.

KA-BOOM! hahahahahahahaha!:arrgh!:

[August]

You cannot hide in a tank

Well to be fair anyone that thinks of a tank as a place to hide in doesn't really grasp the basic concept of armored warfare. :DL

After all tanks are armored fists and you don't hide your fists in a fight. You smash them into your enemies face. (queue Patton theme song) :D

[UnderseaLcpl]

Well to be fair anyone that thinks of a tank as a place to hide in doesn't really grasp the basic concept of armored warfare. :DL

After all tanks are armored fists and you don't hide your fists in a fight. You smash them into your enemies face. (queue Patton theme song) :D

Somewhat true, and somewhat untrue.

The value of tanks lies within "shock effect" and mobility. They must be employed against the enemy's weakest points and then use their mobility to force the enemy into a disadvantageous position. The same is true with any military unit, but tanks are the best performers in open terrain.

August is, however, completely correct about the fallacy of using tanks for protection. A tank must operate as the infantryman does, making maximum use of cover and concealment. In modern armored warfare, the tank that sees first, kills first.

Tanks must be fast, agile, and accurate. Protection is a secondary concern. This is doubly true with the advent of modern artillery-spotting and munitiions, and the increasing sophistication of I-AT weapons. Armor never realy keeps pace with weapons technology, but armor employed in the right place at the right time can win a war in the same way that a heavy cavalry charge into the flank or rear of an enemy line could win a battle.

Tanks are mobile threat incarnate, but they are useless when deployed against a prepared battle line. Even if they manage to break the line, they will suffer heavy losses and they always require a tremendous amount of material support. The best use of armor is to "Hit'em where they ain't" and then consolidate the area that it threatens.

There should be no smashing of armored fists into an enemy's face in a proper campaign. You smash an armored fist into his kidney or spine.

[Happy Times]

I hear you August and understand, i was talking more of what kind of emotions and thoughts armor and mechanized units raises in me personally.:)

Remember one wargame where our recon platoon was sitting in batallion hq as a reserve force. The enemy force had made a landing on the coast east side of Helsinki and we had done our part in locating them.

Then came the call that we are needed at some location.

Of to the APCs and we left in a colum, two motorbikes as scouts in front.

In one curve to the right, were we had to slow down, first APC gets hit, mine, RPG or both.
We get fire from the front and side the whole length of the colum.
The APCs get RPG hits marked, in the first one everyone marked down.

Simulation wests peeping everywhere.
Those that make it to the ditch hit tripwires and explosive coard in the bottom. :nope:

That was the enemy forces recon units ambush.
We never got ambushed by foot but did a lot of our own.
We really felt that when you go mechanized, factors come in that you cant control as much.

I know there are situations where tanks and other armored units play a role.
The first Gulf Wars pincer was an good exsample.
The last Lebanon War was the opposite.
I just see more of the latter than first exsample in the future for armor.

[Schroeder]

The cool thing about flying the Warthog in combat is that by the time you'd be deployed, our side would already have at least air superiority, possibly air supremacy. There wouldn't be much to challenge you in the air, and the damn thing is so heavily armored against ground fire you're relatively safe.
But you are aware of that a few of them were shot down over Iraq? Enemy aircraft are only one possible threat.;)

Did I derail that thread?:oops:

[Safe-Keeper]

It is pretty fun to take to the sky in one in Falcon 4.0 Allied Force. Tearing up everything from infantry to guns to buildings to whole forests with your railgun is quite the experience. Until you're hit by flak and go down:nope:.

Edit: Wasn't this thread about some film?

Edit 2: Looking at reviews now, lots of good ratings. It's being called incredibly claustrophobic and realistic.

[Dowly]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDX7IHP925U&feature=related
was looking up someting on youtube earlyer, came accrost this. Pretty good film with some tanks in it.:yep:

Not much good in it beside the action scenes. Cast and acting is horrendous.

[Oberon]

This is a tricky one really.

Tanks
Pros:
Armour protection
Speed
Firepower
Cons:
Restricted visibility
Vulnerable in urban environments
Risk of entrapment

Inf
Pros:
Better visibility
Better mobility
Smaller target
Cons:
No or minimal armour
Low firepower (depending on target)
Low speed (dismounted)

If I were in the Iraqi war, I'd rather be in a tank than an infantryman, but if I were in the Fulda gap, I'd probably rather be an infantryman. If you're facing an enemy who cannot penetrate your tanks armour, then the tank is the safest place to be, but if he can and can do so easily, then you have to see him, lase him and nail him before he can do the same to you. It helps in tanks like the Abrams that there's two sets of eyes scanning the field, gunner and commander because all it would take is one T-90 or TOW launcher to spot you before you spot him and it's goodnight Irene.
Admittedly, in the Fulda gap as a poor bloody infantry, you'd be stuck in your foxhole in your NBC suit for twenty odd minutes while Ivan pounds the crap out of your position with arty, but then you'd get the armour roll in.
Of course, there is another problem with infantry in such situations...armour can pull back faster than dismounted infantry can, so unless you had some M113s behind a hill to fall back into, then you'd be overrun pretty damn quickly.
To be honest, both sides would have it bloody hard in an equal force war, particularly if the airspace is not secure. It's bad enough have to keep your eyes peeled for T-90s without have a Hind pop up from behind a forest and throw a missile at you, or a bloody Frogfoot strafe you. :damn:

[OneToughHerring]

About movie:

The Israelis are trying to defuse the toxic legacy of the Lebanon conflict with these "it was horrible but don't blame the average soldiers" - type movies. All while the powder keg known as Middle East is smoking again I'm afraid.

I have to say though, I've always been interested in the Six day war and the Yom Kippur war and think that they might make good movies in the right hands. The Lebanon thing is such a tricky subject that even the most gullible viewers will most likely see the propaganda side of this film.

About tanks vs. infantry:

I'd rather be in a tank since I've already done the ground pounding thing. A little variety never hurt. :)

[Oberon]

Six Day war would make a good film as would Yom Kippur. Task Force is right, they could do with doing a decent Panzer film, Wittman being an SS member would probably not go down well though. Rommel is probably a top choice but has been done a lot, particularly focusing on his part in Valkyrie. Based upon a Wehrmacht unit, perhaps from Poland through to the fall of Germany, like a Band of Brothers but from the other side. Would be interesting, if done right.
Marseille would also make a good film story, he was quite the player and would probably love a film about himself. :haha::salute:

[August]

About movie:

The Israelis are trying to defuse the toxic legacy of the Lebanon conflict with these "it was horrible but don't blame the average soldiers" - type movies.

I've noticed over several threads now that you seem to have the idea that war movies are government productions. Do you realize how tin foilish that sounds?

[Jimbuna]

I wouldn't mind seeing something on the largest armoured battle in history...Kursk...from either perspective would do.

[OneToughHerring]

I've noticed over several threads now that you seem to have the idea that war movies are government productions. Do you realize how tin foilish that sounds?

http://www.airforcehollywood.af.mil/

I think it's mind-boggling how some are so naive that they think that movies somehow appear out of thin air and have no relation whatsoever to the society that surrounds them.

[LiveGoat]

I'd love to see a Rommel Biopic focused on the North Africa Campaign.

[Raptor1]

I'd like to see a movie about WWI tanks, that could be truly creepy and claustrophobic...

[August]

http://www.airforcehollywood.af.mil/

I think it's mind-boggling how some are so naive that they think that movies somehow appear out of thin air and have no relation whatsoever to the society that surrounds them.

OMG you think that constitutes military control over a privately made movie? :har:

The military provides technical advisers to movie makers so that the uniforms and equipment is correct for the time period being portrayed. Sometimes they even supply historical battle footage. That is NOT the same thing as exercising creative control over a screenplay or plot.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

But you are aware of that a few of them were shot down over Iraq? Enemy aircraft are only one possible threat.;)

Did I derail that thread?:oops:

...

Um, I covered that. I said RELATIVELY safe.

EDIT: I think only ONE A-10 pilot has ever been KIA, and I'm pretty sure less than five have been shot down. I'm pretty sure those numbers are only off by one or two. Even if I'm completely wrong and the numbers are greater, it's still a relatively safe a/c to be flying in combat.

[Task Force]

I'd like to see a movie about WWI tanks, that could be truly creepy and claustrophobic...

And loud, dont forget loud...

[OneToughHerring]

OMG you think that constitutes military control over a privately made movie? :har:

The military provides technical advisers to movie makers so that the uniforms and equipment is correct for the time period being portrayed. Sometimes they even supply historical battle footage. That is NOT the same thing as exercising creative control over a screenplay or plot.

That's one big part of it, the movies that get the military's support naturally have an advantage over movies that don't get it. Not saying there aren't any other avenues for influencing movie making in a particular country.

[Ishmael]

I like Bill Mauldin's take. In an old Up Front cartoon, Willie and Joe are digging foxholes as a tank drives by. Joe says the following caption.

"I'd rather DIG. A moving foxhole attracts the eye."

[August]

That's one big part of it, the movies that get the military's support naturally have an advantage over movies that don't get it. Not saying there aren't any other avenues for influencing movie making in a particular country.

Oh now it's just some amorphous influence rather than control of the plot like you have been claiming. Be careful backpedaling so quickly dude, you might trip and hurt yourself! :DL

[OneToughHerring]

Oh now it's just some amorphous influence rather than control of the plot like you have been claiming. Be careful backpedaling so quickly dude, you might trip and hurt yourself! :DL

Where exactly did I claim anything about "controlling the plot"? Not saying that can't happen either.

And btw, why the hostility?

[August]

Where exactly did I claim anything about "controlling the plot"? Not saying that can't happen either.

And btw, why the hostility?

How come every time someone disagrees with you they're displaying hostility?

Where exactly you ask? Well for starters right here in this thread.

The Israelis are trying to defuse the toxic legacy of the Lebanon conflict with these "it was horrible but don't blame the average soldiers" - type movies.

[OneToughHerring]

How come every time someone disagrees with you they're displaying hostility?

Where exactly you ask? Well for starters right here in this thread.

Where exactly is the word "plot" used in that post?

When a movie gets made in country x there are many factors that influence it becoming what it is. Plot and who decides what it is, is just one factor. There's a lot more to movie making then the script writing, if that is what you mean by "plot".

Or have I 'lost the plot' here? Or have you August? :)

[August]

Or have I 'lost the plot' here? Or have you August? :)

Well lets see, a government making a movie where the characters and story line are designed to promote sympathy for a particular viewpoint of historical events could have absolutely nothing to do with the plot right?

[OneToughHerring]

Well lets see, a government making a movie where the characters and story line are designed to promote sympathy for a particular viewpoint of historical events could have absolutely nothing to do with the plot right?

The word "government" isn't in my post either. Looks like you are just projecting what is in your mind onto other people's posts.

[August]

The word "government" isn't in my post either. Looks like you are just projecting what is in your mind onto other people's posts.

Dude, you can play ignorant if you want to, but you've repeatedly made the argument that governments determine the content of a movie.

[OneToughHerring]

For a movie to have let's say nationalist tones doesn't necessarily require that there are government comissars pointing a gun to the, say, script writers head. It simply requires a climate where non-nationalistic movies don't get made ensuring that the only movies that are made adhere to a certain norm. Government might get involved at some point but usually not very directly.

Also when following the money that is used to make a movie it's usually possible to determine exactly the original motives behind the making of a certain movie. When dealing with subjects like war the movies are often quite political in nature making it more likely that there is some kind of political guidelines for that particular movie, either given from an outside source like the government or adopted more or less 'freely' by the makers of the particular movie.

[August]

Now you're quibbling.

If your argument had any merit then there would be no such thing as a Michael Moore movie for example. Nor would there have been a Apocalypse Now, or Tell the Spartans, or MASH, or Jarhead in the war movie genre.

There's only one person who decides if a movie will get made or not and that is the person paying for it. That is not the government.

[OneToughHerring]

Well I don't know, someone like Moore is actually very bland type of 'radical documentarian', especially from a European perpective. I know in US he is seen as the new Lenin or something. :haha: Bunch of marketing bs if you ask me.

And the movies you mention, very bland. Apocalypse Now? They showed US soldiers smoking pot and one instance of them being trigger happy. How 'radical'. Jarhead? I would call that a pro-military movie and also book by Swofford. Yes I read it, wasn't very good, and neither was the movie.

Edit. Also I don't remember Coppola getting assistance from the US military for his film, the helicopters used were from the military of the Philippines if I remember correctly. Jarhead got assistance from the US military and why not? It was as pro-war as can be. I haven't seen Tell the Spartans or MASH.

[KnightsCross]

Safe in the Air ? Or on the ground ? its all relative to support, technical & physical
As a leopard gunner I was credited with 3 chopper kills in 1 day ! 2 of them were hunting us
I love the smell of cordite in the morning:cool:

[Noren]

This movies is not about whether Israel is trying to clear its good name, but solely the work of its director - who experienced trauma close to this and wanted to show the world a true wartime movie -> even if you make it, its a hell of a unpleasant experience. Add to that the horror of being trapped in a steel cage in a city-inviroment wont help a bit.

But I was put of with the scenes where the gunsights strol through civilians and such...was that a daydream?