I have a question about the realism of military strategy on the movie "Saving Private Ryan"?

Logistically- the engines were at the backs of the boats- doors wouldn’t work there. The doors at the front let the troops get out fast, as a stationary target is an easy target.

And yes, the allied stratagy was to flood the beach with as many soldiers as possible and hope some of them lived.

That was pretty much the strategy at the time…bulk numbers.

The beach had been bombed for several days straight, and they were not expecting the resistance they got.
As I recall, they also might have landed at the wrong spot.

That was true to the history of the invasion. That’s how those craft were designed. There were to be “amphibious” vehicles that came up on the beaches but they all foundered.

its just an example of how little life was regarded then

@strange1 – I respectfully disagree with your statement that life was less regarded then. It was the way modern war fought…at that time. As technological advances took place, they were used to minimize the deaths of not only the soldiers but the civilian populations. By today’s standards compared to World War II, warfare is nearly sterile in its approach…but it is still a bitch. First rule of war – people die. Rule #2 – You can’t change Rule #1.

@Corporate_Avenger i wont even start to go into detail of abuse to soldiers in the 40’s and 50’s and even the 60’s to demonstrate how “disposable” human life was

It wasn’t just the troops on the landing craft facing those machine guns alone. The Allies had total air superiority over the beach area and heavy naval gunnery support. The biggest problem came when the landing troops began to engage the enemy closely. This prevented the naval guns from firing or they would hit their own men, At that point the Allies could only use close air support; strafing and dropping light ordinance very carefully. The US armored support was delayed hitting the beaches because a large number of the first wave of amphibious tanks swamped and sank in the heavy seas. Clearing out those machine gun positions was hand-to-hand; rifles, grenades, satchel charges. Some of the companies in the first wave on Omaha Beach took over 90% casualties, Such was the lot of assault troops at that time. They were given all the support that was available at the time.

@strange1 – you won’t go into detail because you can’t do so with facts to back up your claims.

@Corporate_Avenger agree to disagree

@strange1 @Corporate_Avenger There are many different opinions of the definition of “acceptable losses”.

I concur that the “Doritos” strategy (“Crunch all you want, we’ll make more”) was pretty much the norm until fairly recently. It has been around for centuries and people couldn’t really think of any better way until the advent of drones, smart bombs, and other technology that we have only had for a couple of decades.

@jerv talk diry to me!

Things didn’t go as planned. The Allies intended to bomb the hell out of the beach to remove obstructions and create foxholes. This would allow the boats to drop off soldiers almost at the water line and they could hop into the bomb craters.

In reality the bombing missions missed their targets, but Eisenhower went along with the invasion anyways because the tides wouldn’t be right for another month.

Thats why you also saw a lot of soldiers drowning, the boats couldn’t get close enough to shore because of the obstructions in the beach.

Also Rommel, a brilliant German general, had placed gigantic “jack” shaped underwater obstructions, even though Hitler was certain that the attack would come further North. Rommel was a better strategist, and concentrated on Normandie, kind of against orders.

@pdworkin It is a good thing for the Allies that Hitler and Rommel did not get along, something which eventually put Rommel (possibly one of history’s greatest strategists) in Africa with little/no support. If Rommel had remained in Europe and had more support, the war may have turned out quite differently, or at least been more hellishly drawn out than it was.

@pdworkin And if Hitler had allowed Rommel to throw in his armored reserves immediately, the Allied forces would have been pushed back into the Channel. It was that close a thing.

@Corporate_Avenger @jerv The real “mass warfare” was on the Eastern Front. Like Kursk, over 100 divisions slamming into each other, niether allowed to make even a tactical retreat by their political masters. Cannon fodder.
And on the Allied side, commanders like MacArthur and Patton who conserved their troops and fought by maneuver were mocked by their men as primadonnas.

Well, let’s face it, even Ike thought MacArthur was a primadonna.

@pdworkin and Ike new him very well, having served under him for 5+ years in Philippines. The competance and ego are separate issues. Montgomery was a very popular commander yet he wasted lives at a prodigious rate. Bradley was a good combination of competance and humility.