I fought in Stalingrad. It was common for the enemy to do a back flip and couple of jumping jacks just before they died from a bullet wound. Talk about a horrible death.
@@rawgab4439 yeah man, I remember my grandpa telling me of how torturing it was to have no internet. He couldn't open Instagram, twitter or TH-cam. It was a living hell 😔
The scene with the big German guy walking through that hall and firing that MG42 from his hip is cool, reminds me of the "smart gun" in the Aliens movie.
That's some pretty amazing high pressure "volatile Vodka" they "Blew up". Not too mention the extreme zoom capability of the 2.5x Mosin scope (maybe 4x?). But there is the Magic of Movie Cinema.
He was Jim Jones 1979, he was the general in (Red dawn 1985), he was in this stalingrad movie 1990, and he was A roman general (Flavius Aiutius) in Attila (2001).
What really bothers me in these old movie battle scenes is the sterility of the casualties. Everyone is either fighting or dead - no-one gets wounded. Depicting of suffering was probably avoided in almost every country for various reasons.
Для народов Советского союза вопрос стоял жизни и смерти. Жертвы были не напрасны и любая цена за победу, куда ниже истребления. Что касается страданий то в фильме они есть и отношения есть, просто это нарезки и совсем не передают содержания фильма.
veramente fatto mailissimo....che spreco di mezzi per scene assolutamente inverosimili. Un offesa per quelli che ci hanno combattutto davvero a Stalingrado.
Only the Germans have actually made a decent movie about this battle so far. It's a crimes that such a pivotal moment in history is either a love story or propaganda. You feel that one day the Russians will have a version that will be truly mind-blowing, God knows they deserve one.
The german army had only about six million (later in the war much less) soldiers at once and 18 million SERVED during the entire war. I've never heard that the germans and their allies would have lost as much as 8 million soldiers. The Soviet Union lost 14.5 million soldiers in the entire war (3million as prisoners of war) and 7 million civilians.
@SashaVedernikov Actually, considering how old is this movie I say I am really impressed. A big improvement over the "German" Pershing tanks used in the Battle of Bulge lol.
@BillKiernan Rough guess, produce lots of smoke making the sight holes in the tank useless meaning someone has to go on top of the turret making him a sniper target, plus the fire and smoke make it harder for infantry to support the panzers, making it easier for soviet infantry to disable to destroy them.
Yeah, you're right, but to take a young man, who's been starving since he was a kid, tell him, "Hey! You! I can make you a great man and help you regain our country's lost honor if you join my army and support my party!" then I think many would sign up for that. However, quite a few German soldiers came to hate Nazism as they began to witness atrocities committed by the Wehrmact, or realize that they had been duped into this by a madman. I apologize for the insensitivity, I should have known.
@dachefffkoch yeah the infantry was huge, however Soviet Union was losing in 1941-42 because: 1. Soviet military doctrine focused mainly on offense rather than defense. They built a lot of tanks, airplanes in the beginning of the war and kept them close to the Western border of the Soviet Union in order to advance. Since Germans invaded and captured those territories a lot of tanks, airplanes, supplies were destroyed/captured. 2. The Great Purge of 1937. Stalin's repressions 3. Unawarness.
At first I was dubious that some Molotov cocktails would have the same explosive power as modern day C4 explosive. But then I had some Soviet era Whadkha.
Bloody the eye relief of the girl snipers scope must be something bloody special if she can see with here eye that far back. No reticle in the scope makes for interesting sniping too.
The Soviets lost 100,000 soldiers in the conquest of Berlin, not 3,000,000. Further, most Soviet casualties during Berlin operation were lost at Battle of Seelow Heights, just east of Berlin. Soviet losses were 30,000 there of the total 100,000 killed. German casualties were higher, approximately 160,000 dead.
yeah, its too difficult to find working, running tiger tanks. Also, technically you can take out a tank using naplam as it heats up to tank and burns the crew/cooks off the ammo (search arab israeli war 1973) so molotovs could possibly have the same effect
@BillKiernan Also bullets wouldn't light cocktails of, that's like bullets making barrels explode in video games. Or 3-4 rockets taking out a tank, its inaccurate, mostly done for looks.
I'm seeing a lot of people that don't know how to time stamp. To time Stamp pause the video and put the time of video you would like to stamp as so 2:12
yes there is. the tiger tank at the end of the movie was build on t-34s platform. Because there only few tigers nowadays that can move. That's why they used this technique.
Greg Torrez Yes it's Soviet made. Here is from the Wiki on the film regarding Booth "Due to the harsh economic conditions in the late 1980s Soviet Union, Ozerov was unable to secure funding for his film inside the USSR. After deliberations, he approached the American Warner Brothers for assistance. The company agreed to provide financial support, but demanded that American actors would be given representation. The reluctant director had to cast Powers Boothe for the title role of General Vasily Chuikov.[4] The film was the first Soviet-American co-production in the Perestroika era"
@ralfisloved Let me see if I can anwer that question. The fact its in WWII using the right equipment in the movie of that times is historically accurate. As far as actual combat events it was scripted from WW2 vets from different units in different battles. Historically accurate in a sense of the times and what men had to go through but fictional in actual events displayed.
German panzers destroyed because some molotov cocktails exploded on the ground nearby? I'm sorry, that's absolutely ridiculous. Firstly, shooting at them would not make them explode unless they had flaming rags already burning, & then they would just burn on the ground. A petrol filled bottle would not explode in a giant ball of flame either. As for hitting the bottles by spraying the area with a DP? Good luck with that! The correct use of molotov cocktails is to throw them onto the engine cooling grates at the rear of a tank. This can potentially suck in burning fuel & cause damage. Not massively effective but if that's all you have to hand. I know it's just a movie & I'm not dissing the Red Army but this opening scene was laughable.
La pelicula parece haber sido hecha en "1952" y no en 2013, las escenas de tiroteo son muy ingenuas; el soldado alemán arriba del carro blindado que abre los brazos y se inclina cuando es alcanzado. Los tiradores que alzan un casco para hacer caer al enemigo. Las escenas de ataque parecen hechas al gusto de Stalin quien al parecer no ha muerto y esta disfrutando este film, ya que cuando los rusos atacan aparece un enjambre humano y nadie vacila y todos parecen competir entre sí por ir adelante. En definitiva recomendable para todo niño ruso nieto de comisarios.
La pelicula del 2013 es una version nueva de un film sovietico de los 70, se transmitio en canal 22 con el titulo de imagenes de una vida, la version del 2013 es mas violenta, algunas de sus esenas se usaron para videos de canciones como la guerra sagrada y la division de la guardia
Esta película es de 1990, dirigida por Yuri Ozerov. La que tú dices es la de 2013, titulada también Stalingrado porque ambas están ambientadas en la misma batalla.
Thank you very much! im watching it now, unfortunately the online version i found doesn't have english subtitles and i know very little Russian so i dont quite understand it hahah. But i get the idea.
The Tiger I was active from 42-44. Brits captured a Tiger in North Africa in 42. They were not in mass. The Panther came out for Kursk in 43, I think you are mixed up on the tanks.
@WiseGuy5674 Haven't seen "The Pacific" but I have "Enemy at the Gates". Both are fascinating movies but Enemy at the Gates was really a crude and rather an amatuer historian perception of real events. I'll have to check out The Pacific :) Thanks for letting me on it, never heard of it before.
When was this movie? The only Eastern Front WWII movies that I'm familiar with is Enemy at the Gates and Stalingrad (The German perspective one starring Thomas Krestmann). Rest are black and white ones made during and after the war.
Whatever our political differences maybe now, we must never forget how the Russians suffered at Volvograd/Stalingrad. I mean they really suffered and but for their courage and tenacity Hitler may well have won the war...
Nah, doesn't matter if they won or lost Stalingrad or Moscow, even without the Americans developing the nuclear bomb. Napolean burned Moscow and still had to retreat. Moscow may have meant nothing. Most importantly, nothing past 1939 could have stopped the development of the atomic bomb. With that, the Americans were guaranteed their victory, no matter the state of the war. The Nazis had 70 scientists working part time to develop the bomb at the same time the Americans had 100,000 working without resource constraints. But, someone had to make them bleed for every mile while we murdered their families at home with terror bombing.
@@johnnymatias3027 actually. Moscow meant a lot but getting Moscow and Stalingrad would indeed be bad for morale, but it was also important because they were huge industrial cities, and many railroads were centre red around them. But yes, taking Moscow alone would not have made the Soviets surrender.
@@charles_0017 yeah railroads are the sole thing I could imagine actually mattering in this. But railroads can be rebuilt, quickly, and German trains didnt run on Russian rails, different guages, so the German supply system was largely truck and horse based anyway. Stalingrad wasn't an industrial city saved by the Russians though, it was an industrial city that was completely destroyed by the war. There was almost zero infrastructure left to produce war material after that battle. Modern Eastern Ukraine and the area to the west of Stalingrad was the heaviest industrial area of the USSR and it was almost completely taken by the Germans, railroads and all, but the Soviets pulled most of their industry to the east. Like physically moved it all. So, they could have continued. Maybe if the Americans hadn't done lend lease the Russians might not have stopped the Germans, as in the early phases of the war it was arguably a majority of their effective war material.
@SashaVedernikov Oh shit...LOL my reply was meant at enoching7 D-Day on SPR was for the most part dead on - no arguing. Band of Brothers was realistic but not accurate as in historically that I'm aware of. Its based off parajumpers behind enemy lines and their compilation of stories all rolled into one. Stil damn good job. Once again, my comment was at enoching7 cause me and you see eye to eye Well, night comrad :)
@AK4769er yeah, the way how WWII movies were made in USSR and the way they are made in Russia now completely different. When I was a kid I was surprised how people die in these movie.
What a ridiculous analogy. That's like saying one team got more shots on goal, so they really won even though the other side put them in the net and chased them off the ice.lol
@texas224 not really. the pacific and band of brothers were both equally as realistic. they were showing two different kinds of war. the european theatre was usually less close quarters and brutal, and the western allies didnt hate the germans in the same way they hated the japanese. remember, more bloody and gory doesnt neccessarily mean more realistic!
As you can see from our comments there are tons of different information sources and we can't know for sure which one is right, but I'm going to go with my sources.
Funny movie, at 12 sec i have seen so many fake hybrid kingtiger turret on a unknow body tank-t34? and at 1.29 very exposure russian sniper.....and a kill....
@strizhi Enemy at the Gates was basically a fantasy movie.While it got some details right, it had loads of rubish in it.Just like Saving Private Ryan was an action movie, a small band of americans taking on like whole batallion of germans and win!
***** It's goofy and inaccurate but it's not 'exaggerated.' Read accounts of how the fighting went in Stalingrad and this is like watching a school play in comparison.
@nath6644 SPR is infact realistic if u think about it, i mean in the final battle of ramelle they planned step by step with machine guns and mines and positions etc etc, plus they would lose if not the other troops arrived
if you think that wars are won by tanks and guns - your wrong. Wars won by courage and will, by self sacrifice and honor, by faith in your brothers in arms. German soldiers fought not red army, they fought plain russian people will to live, to love, to have future -russians fought for each inch of their land, they tear everyone around for that one inch, because they knew that this one inch and every next one will make that difference between living and dying of the whole nation
@strizhi actually band of brothers is based on a true story about easy company in the 101st airborne division of which they took part in d-day, market garden and the battle of the bulge. I'd know that because i own the dvd boxset. Plus it's also based on a book researched by stephen e ambrose.
![Hamburger Hill [954]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zNWM09A36qw/mqdefault.jpg)
I fought in Stalingrad. It was common for the enemy to do a back flip and couple of jumping jacks just before they died from a bullet wound. Talk about a horrible death.
Yeah Man . ..almost no WiFi and absolute no Vegan Option ...it was rough ;)
The swan dive out of the tank was magnificent.
@@rawgab4439 yeah man, I remember my grandpa telling me of how torturing it was to have no internet. He couldn't open Instagram, twitter or TH-cam. It was a living hell 😔
@@general5119 "in the suck" ;)
@@general5119 those nazi bastards got what they deserved.
MG34 with PKM ammo belt container. That's how you know these films were cheap, hahaha. Love this video!
The scene with the big German guy walking through that hall and firing that MG42 from his hip is cool, reminds me of the "smart gun" in the Aliens movie.
Fish Renfroe Boyd They used the mg34 as the foundation of the Smartgun in Aliens. The U.S. Thompson frame was the basis for the Pulse Rifle.
Fish Renfroe Boyd b
That's some pretty amazing high pressure "volatile Vodka" they "Blew up". Not too mention the extreme zoom capability of the 2.5x Mosin scope (maybe 4x?). But there is the Magic of Movie Cinema.
that guy flying at 6:51 looks cool, i love this russian movies!
I would prefer with subtitles.
He was sent into the space
It’s amazing how you can date practically any war movie simply by the sound of its fake explosions and gunfire.
or sound track music
0:54 Didn't know Powers Boothe was in this-dang, he's in war movies all over the world!
I said the same thing, that's Powers Booth.
@@joethekinghawk7514 : yes, that was indeed Powers Boothe. Stalingrad was a 1990 two-part war film directed by Ozerov.
@@Orion3741 he was an amazing actor, he will be missed.
He was Jim Jones 1979, he was the general in (Red dawn 1985), he was in this stalingrad movie 1990, and he was A roman general (Flavius Aiutius) in Attila (2001).
@@joethekinghawk7514 : very interesting. Thank you. I do believe Boothe also acted in Tombstone, along with Biehn, Russell, and Kilmer.
Bloodiest battle of WW2 and the decisive turning point on Eastern front
What really bothers me in these old movie battle scenes is the sterility of the casualties. Everyone is either fighting or dead - no-one gets wounded. Depicting of suffering was probably avoided in almost every country for various reasons.
Для народов Советского союза вопрос стоял жизни и смерти. Жертвы были не напрасны и любая цена за победу, куда ниже истребления. Что касается страданий то в фильме они есть и отношения есть, просто это нарезки и совсем не передают содержания фильма.
That's always bothered me too. You don't die instantly unless you get shot in the head or heart.
@@CC-8891 the 1993 German made movie starling grad showed all the gore and suffering of war
I suppose they didn't have equipment to do the good' ol movie trick where it looks like bullets are hitting somebody.
i love how when a soldier get an explosion they alway rolling
Don't you always do somersaults, when you get shot or blown up?
I cant understand why humans like war movies or war games.
Anyone else saw a body flying when the russian on the rooftop called for artillery?
2:15 best death scene ever in a movie LMAO
The man jumped out the hf
You haven't seen jack shit lol
veramente fatto mailissimo....che spreco di mezzi per scene assolutamente inverosimili. Un offesa per quelli che ci hanno combattutto davvero a Stalingrado.
Nothing like a day at the tractor factory. Glad I wasn't there in person.
Only the Germans have actually made a decent movie about this battle so far. It's a crimes that such a pivotal moment in history is either a love story or propaganda. You feel that one day the Russians will have a version that will be truly mind-blowing, God knows they deserve one.
HERZLICHEN GLÜCKWUNSCH an das russische Volk für die Rettung der Welt. Danke dir
Ciekaw jestem kto teraz będzie ratował świat
@@karolaleksiun6534 , Od kogo??
2:53 aaahh , this damn headache
The german army had only about six million (later in the war much less) soldiers at once and 18 million SERVED during the entire war. I've never heard that the germans and their allies would have lost as much as 8 million soldiers. The Soviet Union lost 14.5 million soldiers in the entire war (3million as prisoners of war) and 7 million civilians.
2:55 was epic even with the music. It sounds heroic and the train yard scene also good.
I like how in russian war movies they also give the germans some character.
Помню в детстве только одного ветерана Сталинграда очень нервный был..
the Russian front undoubtedly was the deadliest during WW2
Пулемётчик на бронитранспартере, которого снайпер подстрелила, актёр у которого ещё нет Оскара!!
это разве не Роберт де Ниро?
Так это ж вроде кирк дуглас
нет. И не будет.
Стыдоба! Спилберг бы такую бойню снял! Не могут наши сцены боев снимать абсолютно! Что тогда-что сейчас!
@SashaVedernikov Actually, considering how old is this movie I say I am really impressed. A big improvement over the "German" Pershing tanks used in the Battle of Bulge lol.
Yeah and they got the sand-dunes just right in the snowy winter of 'The Bulge.'
@BillKiernan Rough guess, produce lots of smoke making the sight holes in the tank useless meaning someone has to go on top of the turret making him a sniper target, plus the fire and smoke make it harder for infantry to support the panzers, making it easier for soviet infantry to disable to destroy them.
Yeah, you're right, but to take a young man, who's been starving since he was a kid, tell him, "Hey! You! I can make you a great man and help you regain our country's lost honor if you join my army and support my party!" then I think many would sign up for that. However, quite a few German soldiers came to hate Nazism as they began to witness atrocities committed by the Wehrmact, or realize that they had been duped into this by a madman. I apologize for the insensitivity, I should have known.
“It’s a piece of cake, just make it easier for men to die.” The Gods of War
@dachefffkoch yeah the infantry was huge, however Soviet Union was losing in 1941-42 because:
1. Soviet military doctrine focused mainly on offense rather than defense. They built a lot of tanks, airplanes in the beginning of the war and kept them close to the Western border of the Soviet Union in order to advance.
Since Germans invaded and captured those territories a lot of tanks, airplanes, supplies were destroyed/captured.
2. The Great Purge of 1937. Stalin's repressions
3. Unawarness.
At first I was dubious that some Molotov cocktails would have the same explosive power as modern day C4 explosive. But then I had some Soviet era Whadkha.
Федька Бондарчук тут ещё по настоящему играет.
Bloody the eye relief of the girl snipers scope must be something bloody special if she can see with here eye that far back. No reticle in the scope makes for interesting sniping too.
The Soviets lost 100,000 soldiers in the conquest of Berlin, not 3,000,000. Further, most Soviet casualties during Berlin operation were lost at Battle of Seelow Heights, just east of Berlin. Soviet losses were 30,000 there of the total 100,000 killed. German casualties were higher, approximately 160,000 dead.
Ähm no 😅😂
yeah, its too difficult to find working, running tiger tanks. Also, technically you can take out a tank using naplam as it heats up to tank and burns the crew/cooks off the ammo (search arab israeli war 1973) so molotovs could possibly have the same effect
@BillKiernan Also bullets wouldn't light cocktails of, that's like bullets making barrels explode in video games. Or 3-4 rockets taking out a tank, its inaccurate, mostly done for looks.
at least the scene of the Howitzer firing looks better done than any movie of wwii made by hollywood
Those little molotovs went up like 500 pound bombs lol
That is just the dumbest nonsense I've seen. You can't blow up Molotov cocktails like bombs by shooting at them - with enough power to blow up tanks.
I'm seeing a lot of people that don't know how to time stamp. To time Stamp pause the video and put the time of video you would like to stamp as so 2:12
yes there is. the tiger tank at the end of the movie was build on t-34s platform. Because there only few tigers nowadays that can move. That's why they used this technique.
2:01 to be honest i would have dived lower into the halftrack after having my helmet blown off my head!
Tiger had never been used in Stalingrad 1942, end of story!
Actually the battle ended in 1943.
But there was no Tigers at that time.
boy that Soviet officer looks like Powers Booth.
+Greg Torrez Thats him in fact
***** are you sure about that? Isn't this a Russian made film?
Greg Torrez
Yes it's Soviet made. Here is from the Wiki on the film regarding Booth "Due to the harsh economic conditions in the late 1980s Soviet Union, Ozerov was unable to secure funding for his film inside the USSR. After deliberations, he approached the American Warner Brothers for assistance. The company agreed to provide financial support, but demanded that American actors would be given representation. The reluctant director had to cast Powers Boothe for the title role of General Vasily Chuikov.[4] The film was the first Soviet-American co-production in the Perestroika era"
***** ha! Vasily Chuikov being portrayed by Rev. Jim Jones of the People's Temple and the reluctant National Guardsman from Southern Comfort.
That's because it is Powers Booth
@ralfisloved Let me see if I can anwer that question. The fact its in WWII using the right equipment in the movie of that times is historically accurate. As far as actual combat events it was scripted from WW2 vets from different units in different battles. Historically accurate in a sense of the times and what men had to go through but fictional in actual events displayed.
German panzers destroyed because some molotov cocktails exploded on the ground nearby?
I'm sorry, that's absolutely ridiculous. Firstly, shooting at them would not make them explode unless they had flaming rags already burning, & then they would just burn on the ground. A petrol filled bottle would not explode in a giant ball of flame either. As for hitting the bottles by spraying the area with a DP? Good luck with that!
The correct use of molotov cocktails is to throw them onto the engine cooling grates at the rear of a tank. This can potentially suck in burning fuel & cause damage. Not massively effective but if that's all you have to hand.
I know it's just a movie & I'm not dissing the Red Army but this opening scene was laughable.
La pelicula parece haber sido hecha en "1952" y no en 2013, las escenas de tiroteo son muy ingenuas; el soldado alemán arriba del carro blindado que abre los brazos y se inclina cuando es alcanzado. Los tiradores que alzan un casco para hacer caer al enemigo. Las escenas de ataque parecen hechas al gusto de Stalin quien al parecer no ha muerto y esta disfrutando este film, ya que cuando los rusos atacan aparece un enjambre humano y nadie vacila y todos parecen competir entre sí por ir adelante. En definitiva recomendable para todo niño ruso nieto de comisarios.
La pelicula del 2013 es una version nueva de un film sovietico de los 70, se transmitio en canal 22 con el titulo de imagenes de una vida, la version del 2013 es mas violenta, algunas de sus esenas se usaron para videos de canciones como la guerra sagrada y la division de la guardia
Esta película es de 1990, dirigida por Yuri Ozerov. La que tú dices es la de 2013, titulada también Stalingrado porque ambas están ambientadas en la misma batalla.
@@ekhozo6850 gracias por la correccion
Thank you very much! im watching it now, unfortunately the online version i found doesn't have english subtitles and i know very little Russian so i dont quite understand it hahah. But i get the idea.
That is a common problem but the movies are great
like "enemy at the gates" attack scene
☝
But with old movies
The Tiger I was active from 42-44. Brits captured a Tiger in North Africa in 42. They were not in mass. The Panther came out for Kursk in 43, I think you are mixed up on the tanks.
@Sturmmann: Those weren't actually meant to be Tigers. they were meant to look like the Panzer IV, which was the mainstay of the Panzer forces then.
@WiseGuy5674 Haven't seen "The Pacific" but I have "Enemy at the Gates". Both are fascinating movies but Enemy at the Gates was really a crude and rather an amatuer historian perception of real events. I'll have to check out The Pacific :) Thanks for letting me on it, never heard of it before.
Powered Booth is in this too. Wow
When was this movie? The only Eastern Front WWII movies that I'm familiar with is Enemy at the Gates and Stalingrad (The German perspective one starring Thomas Krestmann). Rest are black and white ones made during and after the war.
Great scenes, Ура товарищи!
Whatever our political differences maybe now, we must never forget how the Russians suffered at Volvograd/Stalingrad. I mean they really suffered and but for their courage and tenacity Hitler may well have won the war...
Mostly at the hands of Stalin and his political commissars.
Nah, doesn't matter if they won or lost Stalingrad or Moscow, even without the Americans developing the nuclear bomb. Napolean burned Moscow and still had to retreat. Moscow may have meant nothing. Most importantly, nothing past 1939 could have stopped the development of the atomic bomb. With that, the Americans were guaranteed their victory, no matter the state of the war. The Nazis had 70 scientists working part time to develop the bomb at the same time the Americans had 100,000 working without resource constraints. But, someone had to make them bleed for every mile while we murdered their families at home with terror bombing.
@@johnnymatias3027 actually. Moscow meant a lot but getting Moscow and Stalingrad would indeed be bad for morale, but it was also important because they were huge industrial cities, and many railroads were centre red around them. But yes, taking Moscow alone would not have made the Soviets surrender.
@@charles_0017 yeah railroads are the sole thing I could imagine actually mattering in this. But railroads can be rebuilt, quickly, and German trains didnt run on Russian rails, different guages, so the German supply system was largely truck and horse based anyway. Stalingrad wasn't an industrial city saved by the Russians though, it was an industrial city that was completely destroyed by the war. There was almost zero infrastructure left to produce war material after that battle. Modern Eastern Ukraine and the area to the west of Stalingrad was the heaviest industrial area of the USSR and it was almost completely taken by the Germans, railroads and all, but the Soviets pulled most of their industry to the east. Like physically moved it all. So, they could have continued. Maybe if the Americans hadn't done lend lease the Russians might not have stopped the Germans, as in the early phases of the war it was arguably a majority of their effective war material.
Ангелы смерти) You can find it on torrent Russian sites)
@jonastti that's true, Yuri Ozerov the director couldn't find any Pz III or Pz IV so they built tiger on a t-34 just for the movie.
Couldn't agree more, my friend.
At least they're not obsessed with slow motion bullet travel CGI
Great Vid !
5 *****
только представьте 50 000 000 человек погибли.Сейчас весь мир с ума сходит из-за 80 тысяч погибших в Сирии.
Now read what u wrote and think about it.
Not as much as you would think. They haven't been in a lot of wars that they don't need to be in. Mostly against terrorists.
@SashaVedernikov
i agree and i apreciate that
but you cannot deny that final battle scene's focus is on hollywood tragedy and not realism
@SashaVedernikov Oh shit...LOL my reply was meant at enoching7
D-Day on SPR was for the most part dead on - no arguing. Band of Brothers was realistic but not accurate as in historically that I'm aware of. Its based off parajumpers behind enemy lines and their compilation of stories all rolled into one. Stil damn good job.
Once again, my comment was at enoching7 cause me and you see eye to eye
Well, night comrad :)
@AK4769er yeah, the way how WWII movies were made in USSR and the way they are made in Russia now completely different. When I was a kid I was surprised how people die in these movie.
My only beef with this is the presence of Tiger I's.... No Tiger I's were documented to have been present in Stalingrad...
@Deimxneyron
Tigers appeared in 1943
I like the sceene with the lady sniper (4:11). like always :)
It was the based true of story World War 2
What a ridiculous analogy. That's like saying one team got more shots on goal, so they really won even though the other side put them in the net and chased them off the ice.lol
@Eldernesh :D yea in guns of navarone they used m7 greyhounds for panzers
@texas224
not really. the pacific and band of brothers were both equally as realistic. they were showing two different kinds of war. the european theatre was usually less close quarters and brutal, and the western allies didnt hate the germans in the same way they hated the japanese.
remember, more bloody and gory doesnt neccessarily mean more realistic!
I cannot conceive the total number of casualties of WW2 !! 😲😵
60 million killed with nearly half of those in Soviet Russia alone. Terrible indeed.
As you can see from our comments there are tons of different information sources and we can't know for sure which one is right, but I'm going to go with my sources.
@2ab6 The thing is that they had masses suporting them
Funny movie, at 12 sec i have seen so many fake hybrid kingtiger turret on a unknow body tank-t34? and at 1.29 very exposure russian sniper.....and a kill....
> first shot, sends helmet flying off his head
> Second has him attemp to star jump out of the Sd.Kfz 251
NOPE.JPG
This like American Musical Westside Story. Very pretty dancing.
@strizhi Enemy at the Gates was basically a fantasy movie.While it got some details right, it had loads of rubish in it.Just like Saving Private Ryan was an action movie, a small band of americans taking on like whole batallion of germans and win!
1:58
damn, germany really had some modern stuff!
@Deus Vult no way in hell thats a ww2 half track
@@Foxrich99 It's Tatra T-800,Czechoslovak post ww2 copy of German sdkfz.251.
well that, gentleman is superb russian acting
I saw Pacific-great movie. We need to film something similar about the Soviet Army.
@knucklescool actually there is. It was made to look like a German panzer.
God forbids we ever face such a thing in our backyard. God ..This movie is 10 times more intense than cross of iron.
***** seems pretty dramatized to me, not Hollywood but Russian equivalent, either way they both exaggerate to make things exciting
***** It's goofy and inaccurate but it's not 'exaggerated.' Read accounts of how the fighting went in Stalingrad and this is like watching a school play in comparison.
подстреленный пулеметчик - это сила!
It is from Stalingrad! Read the description
I've checked this from many different sources and they all claim that it is somewhere between 13-14,5 million soldiers and it seems to be believable.
True. The Soviets emptied out their prisons and sent prisoners out on the battlefields first. They no longer felt the need to babysit criminals.
It's no worse than THE LONGEST DAY.
@Eldernesh actually Tigers were not deployed in battle until Kursk. Interestingly enough the Tiger tank took many inspirations from the T-34
первые тигры были под Ленинградом зимой 1942 года.Один захватили Советские солдаты.
lol, Tiger panzer didnt fight on stalingrad.
i hope you enjoy 0:54 as much as i did
Powers Booth
@nath6644 SPR is infact realistic if u think about it, i mean in the final battle of ramelle they planned step by step with machine guns and mines and positions etc etc, plus they would lose if not the other troops arrived
Unpleasant ringing sounds of gunshots and explosions!!!
if you think that wars are won by tanks and guns - your wrong. Wars won by courage and will, by self sacrifice and honor, by faith in your brothers in arms. German soldiers fought not red army, they fought plain russian people will to live, to love, to have future -russians fought for each inch of their land, they tear everyone around for that one inch, because they knew that this one inch and every next one will make that difference between living and dying of the whole nation
Very professional...well cone
Ah their citizens just know how to have fun. A few fights, a few shots of vodka and a few more fights and then everyone's friends.
Аааа, понял: это мы росли на этих фильмах. А англоязычная братия ничего этого не видела. Потому сейчас им всё это так прикольно смотреть.
I like in 7:23 how the Germán soldier Stab the Ruski ... 😍 The best scene in all the movie 🙂
@strizhi actually band of brothers is based on a true story about easy company in the 101st airborne division of which they took part in d-day, market garden and the battle of the bulge. I'd know that because i own the dvd boxset. Plus it's also based on a book researched by stephen e ambrose.