Stalingrad 2012 reinactment! - Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History

The Exorcist · #1 27 Nov 12, 22:51

http://englishrussia.com/2012/11/21/...70-years-after

I gotta say, the pictures were great. Best of all were the pre-game shots, especially the looks some of the participants were giving each other.

As usual, everyone seemed a bit too clean in this little wargame, and everyone had a fresh shave, except maybe the nurses.

And wow, where did they find that truck!
Tanks, you can still find, but the more common vehicles from that age are as rare as hen's teeth today.

Heck of a show, looks like there were a couple of hundred people in each team.
I miss all the good stuff these days...

Ensign Elliott · #2 29 Nov 12, 06:27

Fascinating stuff

ShAA · #3 29 Nov 12, 15:33

Well, 34/85s as usual - over here they are only used for the lifting of the Siege reenactments and even for this period it was a stretch as these tanks only started getting introduced to the army. I suppose there are almost no early model T-34s left running, but they could've used cheaper BA cars or maybe a T-70, which would be perfectly normal in terms of historical accuracy. Normally it comes down to a particular reenactors' association and its view on historical detail. Seems like these guys wanted to make it rather a show for the public than a reenactment. Which isn't that bad, after all.

joea · #4 30 Nov 12, 07:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShAA

Well, 34/85s as usual - over here they are only used for the lifting of the Siege reenactments and even for this period it was a stretch as these tanks only started getting introduced to the army. I suppose there are almost no early model T-34s left running, but they could've used cheaper BA cars or maybe a T-70, which would be perfectly normal in terms of historical accuracy. Normally it comes down to a particular reenactors' association and its view on historical detail. Seems like these guys wanted to make it rather a show for the public than a reenactment. Which isn't that bad, after all.

You take what you can get I suppose. FWIW, when I saw the recent film on the Brest Fortress they had a BA car and some tanks made up to look like Pz-IIIs that were accurate for the period. They also made good use of CGI, recreating German aircraft (He-111s, Stukas, Me-109s) and one scene with an I-16 fighter that was shot down over the fort. (The pilot bailed out and told the garrison they were surrounded). Since the aircraft were only background stuff it did not detract from the story.

I still think the people are the weakest link in most reenactments but who wants to be on a starvation diet for 3 months and not take a shower for 2 weeks??

ShAA · #5 30 Nov 12, 07:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by joea

You take what you can get I suppose. FWIW, when I saw the recent film on the Brest Fortress they had a BA car and some tanks made up to look like Pz-IIIs that were accurate for the period. They also made good use of CGI, recreating German aircraft (He-111s, Stukas, Me-109s) and one scene with an I-16 fighter that was shot down over the fort. (The pilot bailed out and told the garrison they were surrounded). Since the aircraft were only background stuff it did not detract from the story.

Yeah, despite minor inconsistencies with the historical period, which are inevitable when you're filming a movie, it was lauded as very accurate by many reviewers.

Quote:

I still think the people are the weakest link in most reenactments but who wants to be on a starvation diet for 3 months and not take a shower for 2 weeks??

They could play fresh reinforcements

The Exorcist · #6 30 Nov 12, 13:03

Didn't they find a T-34/76 in a peat bog just recently? With a new engine I would think they could get that one going again.

Yeah, dirty is a minor point, it costs these guys a lot of money to get their uniforms together. Just to see, I asked a Civil War group around here what it would cost to get involved. The most basic set, not counting a musket or much else, would have cost several hundred dollars.

I saw a lot of Germans with Russian-made weapons. A few would have been okay (would have been very tempted to go with a PPSH-41 myself) but the proportion was too high.
Maybe they needed a lot of locals to fill out the German ranks? That happens here sometimes when they need some extra Confederates at the last minute.

dgfred · #7 13 Dec 12, 10:49

Thanks for the pics!

Ulrih · #8 14 Dec 12, 07:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShAA

Yeah, despite minor inconsistencies with the historical period, which are inevitable when you're filming a movie, it was lauded as very accurate by many reviewers.

Where did you get that? So far I saw on Russian historic forums that this movie is pretty far from reality especially in episode with "superbomb".

ShAA · #9 14 Dec 12, 08:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ulrih

Where did you get that? So far I saw on Russian historic forums that this movie is pretty far from reality especially in episode with "superbomb".

I saw some of such accounts, but they came from the usual nitpickers and bean counters who would lose sleep over a wrongly sown button on a uniform. And it was, of course, compared to other recent war films like Shtrafbat, Admiral, Leningrad and, of course, Mikhalkov's "masterpieces".

Ulrih · #10 14 Dec 12, 08:31

Well Mikhalkov`s "masterpieces" are crap that we don`t have to discuss

Speaking about "Brestkaja krepostj" - don`t you think that episode with "superbomb" pretty much ruined all movie? And I don`t think that episode with hostages in first day of war was also accurate but in this case maybe I`m wrong.

ShAA · #11 14 Dec 12, 08:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ulrih

Speaking about "Brestkaja krepostj" - don`t you think that episode with "superbomb" pretty much ruined all movie?

Well, I don't see anything that terribly wrong. The Germans had 1000 - 2000 kg bombs at the time, and probably the boom was smaller, but I can't see it as some kind of great historical error. Now if the Germans had never used "extra powerful" guns or bombs in this battle this would've been a travesty of history indeed.

Quote:

And I don`t think that episode with hostages in first day of war was also accurate but in this case maybe I`m wrong.

A human shield was mentioned in some eyewitness report. I'm pretty certain it wasn't exactly as it was shown in the film, but once again, compared to Shtrafbat, where such would've been executed by NKVD officers, it's nothing too big.

Duke Maynard · #12 24 Dec 12, 16:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShAA

I saw some of such accounts, but they came from the usual nitpickers and bean counters who would lose sleep over a wrongly sown button on a uniform. And it was, of course, compared to other recent war films like Shtrafbat, Admiral, Leningrad and, of course, Mikhalkov's "masterpieces".

You know, you don't have to trash the man's films just because Brest Fortress can't touch the historical fidelity of the work of art that is 1612.

ShAA · #13 24 Dec 12, 19:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke Maynard

You know, you don't have to trash the man's films just because Brest Fortress can't touch the historical fidelity of the work of art that is 1612.

1612 didn't even pretend to be a "historical film" with its obviously mystical/fantasy episodes. And should I make any comparisons of historical fidelity with the average Hollywood product or we end the argument right now?

I still haven't heard here what's so bad about the film. Wrong buttons on the uniforms of a few extras in the background appearing for 2 seconds?

Duke Maynard · #14 25 Dec 12, 22:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShAA

1612 didn't even pretend to be a "historical film" with its obviously mystical/fantasy episodes. And should I make any comparisons of historical fidelity with the average Hollywood product or we end the argument right now?

Making a joke about the director you made a joke about is an argument?