This is not a historical scene. The film is about historical events, but they haven't tried very hard to make it authentic (the details like weapons or uniforms are more or less correct, but often misplaced). The combat is unrealistic, too (illumination rounds? really?; the Soviet infantry, who are supposed to hug the tanks are often going somewhere else; where are the NCOs?). And, on top of it all, it's a Cold War film glorifying the German Army on the eastern front.
@@andrewchesler2029 one where the whole focus is on the Germans, and the Soviets are a faceless Other. One where the Germans are skilled and principled while the Soviets are a mass of brutes. One where the Germans are brave and loyal towards each other, and humane towards their enemies. A film that subverts its subject matter and refuses to discuss the realities of the war.
This was filmed entirely with analog equipment and released in 1977. That makes it older than most of the people reading this comment. Lo-Tech? More like No-Tech....
@@maximilianodelrio Sorry Maximiliano you are wrong! 20,000 Russians lost their lives every day of the conflict till the very end. If Americans had such a casualty count the American public would be aghast. Yes, of course, sacrifices and brutal fighting was done in many theaters but for sheer shedding of blood nothing holds a candle to the Eastern front with a possible exception of the Chinese-Japanese war. A half a million Russians and equal amount of Germans in the 8 month battle of Stalingrad. More the total U.S. and British casalties in ALL theaters. You need to study up on your WW II war history my friend.
@@chuckbuckbobuck i know more people died there, it’s obvious, but what I meant is that the brutality of the fighting could be surpassed in other fronts, most notably on the Pacific with the Japanese and their brutal defence
@#3_Vacuum_Salesman_of_Marrakesh well i dont understand how you can grow iron crosses firstly, and if its a metaphor of some sort i cant see that either... whats the meaning behind it?
I was wondering why there were so many jump-cuts. Then I realized, the director implemented these jump-cuts during battle so as to give the viewer a sense of "what the hell is happening?". In other words, the director wants the viewer to have the same feeling a soldier has, in battle, when so much is happening at once. Also, notice how the jump-cuts go away once the soldiers are no longer in a fight and things are relatively "calm". Then, once another battle begins, the jump-cuts return.
The answer is probably more prosaic - budget. Set up a big scene like this, all your cameras, and you can't do a retake, not on the budget of that film, so the footage you have at the end has to be used somehow. It would have taken days to film, so there's no going back - closups would have been put in at the end.
It certainly has that effect. But then again, we the audience aren’t supposed to be confused about what is happening. Its effect is indistinguishable from bad directing/editing.
***** ...and those were genuine T-34/85s provided by the Yugoslav army which them in stock to be rented out for movie purposes (Kelly's Heroes was filmed there)...
Most expensive VHS I ever bought, 35$. I saw this when it came out in theatres in 77, 25 years later made it part of my video collection. It had to be ordered it was so rare, but what a great war movie it is.
By far - even by today's standards - one of the best realistically depicted war movies ever made of the titanic battles on the Eastern Front during WWII ... 'Tough-arse' Sgt. Steiner, played convincingly well and true to the tone of the film's gritty aura by the late (and equally 'tough-arse') star, James Coburn, couldn't have been better-portrayed by any other leading actor - who, in the end, justified and succinctly reflected the character's trials and tribulations to the bitter end from the novel of the same name. A highly recommended viewing for all WWII afficionados of the Russian-German War. Thanks for posting!
Fun fact: the Russians (and some Germans!) are played by members of the Yugoslav People's Army. Care was taken to make the weapons authentic, though this wasn't possible. Hence T-34/85 instead of T-34/76, Yugoslav M-53 machine gun instead of German MG-42 (they're very similar though), Yugoslav uniforms instead of Soviet ones, American airplanes instead of Soviet ones, and finally Yugoslav TAM trucks instead of Soviet GAZ/ZIS.
Cannot verify all your claims apart from the MG-42. We still use the Yugoslav M-53 replica in the Norwegian army and when they fire it in the film a trained ear can recognize the sound of it. We call it MG-3 up here. A fantastic weapon. It looks excactly like the MG-42 only the firing rate is cut in half. It fires 17-23 rounds/sec. Double that rate for the MG-42
+Sonny Five oh you mean it like that..yes then i agree... I watch the movie and beside a lot of people dieing because its war it had not much story... quality is quit good indeed..
Also the fighting is pretty realistic. Especially for an old war movie, which are always so damn cheesy. It isn't perfect, but it's much better than all the other old ones I've seen.
I can’t imagine the amount of time the editors had to spend sitting in some room somewhere with scissors cutting and splicing... cutting and splicing...
I love how chatoic it is. You can barely tell what is going on but that's a good thing because they could not tell either. Just madness, death chaos and suffering
+tSp289 My presumption is that Peckinpah and editors Michael Ellis and Tony Lawson wanted to simulate the sheer confusion of war. It's jarring and disorienting, which must be pretty accurate to how the real thing felt. It's the sound that struck me, the constant barrage of ear-splitting crashing decibels. Who can think in such a crazed atmosphere? I find this a disturbingly credible portrait of battle. Smooth, clear editing has its place, and most war movies (certainly those prior to, say, 1995 or so) observe traditional methods of cutting and maintaining continuity. Peckinpah here is creating the same kind of intense chaos as he did in key scenes of "The Wild Bunch." For me, it works.
I like how the tank didn't explode into a nuclear blast from a grenade (but only if thrown from a shirtless guy with abs). So at least it's more realistic than most.
The T-34 was designed to resist any attack or mine land, was the most advanced design for a tank, and easily take punishment for the biggest tank from the Germans The Tiger-Panzer!
@@hernanbojacav.8396 : It was built for reliability, simple repair and mass production. The Nazis couldn't get out of their own way, so busy were they with changes, that their tank production and readiness in the field were very poor by comparison. Soviets kept it simple. Used the best design for their chassis - which the Americans passed on - and I THINK they just stuck with a diesel engine, and didn't fool around with turbine engines. Basically, a farmer who worked on his tractors could work on a T-34.
@@harrymills2770 т 34 была оригинальная собственная конструкция. приобрели танк кристи - он же бт2, и его наследники бт5, бт7, это танки 30 годов, совершенно другие , во всем двигатель, ходовая, броня, орудие, ничего общего. а дизель выбрали по техническим и экономическим соображениям - в ссср было много дизеля и недостаток бензина, плюс дизель дешевле, и главное - т 34 поставили на поток, на конвейер, который делал танков больше чем вся германия,ссср не плодил модели - как только производство стабилизировали осталось практически две модели - ис и т 34. а немцы использовали бензин потому что добывали его из угля, а дизеля им не хватало - и весь он шел на флот - чистая экономика. The T 34 was an original proprietary design. we bought the Christie tank - aka bt2, and its successors bt5, bt7, these are tanks of the 30s, completely different, in everything the engine, chassis, armor, gun, nothing in common. and diesel was chosen for technical and economic reasons - in the USSR there was a lot of diesel and a lack of gasoline, plus diesel is cheaper, and most importantly-the t 34 was put on the stream, on the conveyor, which made more tanks than the whole of Germany, the USSR did not produce models - as soon as production was stabilized, there were almost two models - is and t 34. and the Germans used gasoline because they extracted it from coal, and they lacked diesel-and all of it went to the fleet-pure economy.
***** Yeah, you made a damn good point. Even though I was referring to the fact that living through battles like that day after day for years would really really REALLY suck.
+╬Reichsritter╬ wE THOUGHT THERE WAS SOLDIERS ON THAT BRIDGE. I RED ABOUT IT....ON BEHAFL OF THE USA AND PRESIDENT BARRACK HUSSEING OBAMMA, WE APOLOGIZE BUTT DAMMIT YOU DECLARED WAR ON US NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND
Saw this movie in the 80-s. Even then it amazed me how unrealistic it was! Hordes of red barbarians attacking a handful of arian knights, piling up at their feet... A Bridge Too Far, on the other hand, was pretty realistic and the events were depicted quite accurately.
But many... many, many cuts... ah this is what makes this movie so chaotic and hard for me to watch, I don't know where the front line is where they really are and even dying this is very vague, for example, Stalingrad 1993 has great battle scenes because they are specific, and this movie builds characters even among the episodic or insignificant. Cross of Iron is frankly terrible at building characters, which makes them forget quickly and you don't even notice that they die. After all, this movie is full of heroic scenes that are stupid. Stalingrad 1993, on the other hand, shows war devoid of heroism, it focuses on the drama of war, it does not hide in showing wounds, severed limbs, screams, suicides.
"No quick cuts" first thing I noticed was how sickeningly quick the camera cuts are in between shots. So many it becomes hard to even tell whats going on Gunna be honest, the editing there is genuinely poor
The thing is because this film lacks the stupid fake hero Allies it doesn’t devulge into the common bear pits of war film. There was no reason to make either side morally superior or ”good” so it transcendents into the one of the very best war films ever
Oddly enough even tho its a bit on the rough side the equipment portrayed is quite a bit more authentic than what we see in modern movies. The t-34s, the german mortar and machine gun crews even the 75mm Pak is accurate. The weight of the teller mines when they threw them on the track was great whether they weighed there actual weight or the actors just played as if they were heavy. Well done any way one looks at it
I agree..those mines looked heavy..the dirt and dust on the tanks and soldiers made them look very lived in and real..many times, as you say, more modern films can look too clean..like they've come straight from props and wardrobe department...one of the effects that Saving Private Ryan got very right, was the deadening thud of the guns and not the per-twang sound that you get in older films like this...apart from that this film has done a great job..must watch it again
The old film was made by Americans and is absolutely far from reality. Only Russia can make a real film about the war between Germany and Russia 1941-1945. Recent films close to the real battle films "28 PANFILOVTSEV" and "RZHEV".
@@user-vr4th9lk5s The Cross of Iron was an Anglo-German production based on the book by Willi Heinrich who served on the Eastern Front. Nothing wrong with the film as it is. I've seen several Soviet war films and they always have a certain element of propaganda in them. No thanks!
This is one of the best war movies ever made, if not ,the best!! Great acting, authentic vehicles and equipment and lots of action!! Thanks Sam Peckinpah!!!!
The film ends on rather an odd note, but was originally supposed to include an additional extra scene including an airfield. But the producer pulled the funds. Also based on the book 'The Willing Flesh' by Willi Henrich who fought on the eastern front. The film compacts the book heavily, but does a decent job. The book is most certainly worth a read; at times it's excellent.
Indeed, I started the book yesterday and can barely put it down, it fleshes out the personalities and inner conflicts of the characters so well. I believe Peckinpah was a raging alcoholic and extremely difficult to deal with and by the time we get to Steiner's "I'll show you where the Iron Crosses grow" speech with Stransky, the production was bankrupt. The entire end scene was apparently filmed in a day and involved a lot of cutting and creative editing. Powerful and very sympathetic film nonetheless. The average German landser knew the war was as nuts as the Allied soldier did, or certainly came to realise it after Stalingrad. This film still hits like a sledgehammer.
@@markbirchall8225if you like that book then you you will absolutely love “The Forgotten Soldier,” by Guy Sajer, a 17 year old soldier in the elite unit Gross Deutschland Division for 3 years on the Eastern Front. I’ve had to purchase 4 books now because every time I loan it out for someone to read, something mysteriously happens and it’s never returned. It’s BY FAR the closest to, and most realistically written book describing combat and a soldier’s life during war. I’m a 60 year old former Marine grunt and I’ve never read anything even close to this survivors account of what they saw and endured.
The T-34's biggest advantage wasn't it's sloped armor, it's high mobility, or it's gun(whether 76mm or 85mm)...it was the fact that there were always more...and more...and more of them.
The same people who told you that want you to pretend making more tanks than the rest of the world combined doesn't matter when they have a coked upped leader in a tight t-shirt like anyone gives a fuck
Ага, знатоки. Вы всё ещё верите в то что Ваши воздушные асы по 200 самолётов сбивали? Гебельсовская пропаганда, такая тупая, но для вас нормально. Живите дальше тупые бюргеры.
@@hansvandijk1487 diesel fuel does freeze. and the tracks werent that much of an advantage....it had the same ground pressure as the tiger I, and look what happened to that thing
Most likely Coburn directed while Peckinpah was having DT's. Not hating on Peckinpah, but at this point in his career, Coburn did a lot of the work for him.
As a former morterman, the first thing I noticed was the high angle of the gun. We called this a 'red mission'. This would be very accurate considering the proximity of the infantry. My hat is off to the military advisor.
@@scottfoster161 I was actually in a CHB. Drove a 113 for our TOC/TAC when I wasn't in the S-3. To much brains to be a grunt.....but definitely smart enough to understand trajectory basics. So instead of trying to insult another veteran.......why not just admit that it isn't rocket science. At least the basics. It isn't difficult.
Dont forget the novel of Willi Heinrich which the movie is based on: Das geduldige Fleisch aka The willing Flesh. I read the book first in 1989 and I am still impressed.
Heh, I had read the book a few year before wathing the movie. I didn't know this movie was based on the book before watching it. About half-way through I started to think, hey, this all feel awfully familliar.
Only Russia can make a real film about the war between Germany and Russia 1941-1945. Recent films close to the real battle films "28 PANFILOVTSEV" and "RZHEV".
Fantastic action scene by a master film-maker, Sam Peckinpah...if anybody is wondering why there aren't any Wehrmacht panzerfausts in action, the single-use anti-tank weapon first became available in small numbers in August 1943. This film depicts the Wehrmacht's retreat actions at the Kuban bridgehead on the Taman Peninsula in 1943 (Jan to Oct). Improved versions of the panzerfaust only began to be produced in quantity from September 1943 onwards....
taclas1 Although the Germans did have what we'd probably now call RPGs, it is surprising that their use wasn't more widespread. They couldn't destroy a tank, but they could certainly immobilize it by blowing the tread off.
+Haas Siegen yes correct they were capable of destroying tanks. The American bazooka was limited and could not defeat Tiger or Panther armour but the Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust could do it. You just needed to be a very brave man or boy to use one so close to a tank.
must be the best war film ever, even if apocalypse now is very closed. the battles scenes are amazing, very intense even if we almost don't see blood.... peckinpah was such a genius...
Chromewolf187 Stalingrad was a Russian made movie with financial backing from the Putin regime. Thus why the Russians in that movie are super men who can fend off entire divisions despite being only five guys.
Hands down best movie from the German perspective. Shows how hellish the eastern front was. Shows an accurate showing of t-34's on the offensive not just endless hoards. A good portrait of the red army in the late War offensives. No stupid endless red charges with no armor protection. Firing online in the prone while talking guns, proper bounding from cover to cover. It's hands down of the best
The Soviets fiddled around with large-scale mobile warfare doctrine before the war. Stalin shot all the officers who experimented with it during the Great Purge. Then the Germans taught them everything they knew about their "lighting-war".
Неа, это из фильма "Железный крест". И есть еще продолжение этой мути, второй фильм "Железный крест-2". Там уже война с союзниками. Главный герой - седенький старик в немецкой военной кепи-бергмюце или гансовке по нашему. Герой никак не может получить железный крест. Это основная сюжетная линия фильма, не уживчив с начальством. Он в звании что-то вроде фельдфебеля. Палит танки налево и направо, воюет в общем, а крест не дают. Кое как эту дрянь досмотрел.
Sam Peckinpah was the best. Cross of Iron - which got only mixed reviews in 1977 - is becoming somewhat of a cult movie today. What battle scenes. What human interest scenes mixed in with them.
Spartaculus Jones It was a great movie, a movie that rivals classics like a Bridge to Far and Kelly's Heroes, however the fact the movie is shown from the German point of view was just too taboo at the time.
My father who was a German solider , who servied on the Eastern front, said something I will never forget: There we're many of us, but there was far more many of them
Ironically, Germany and it's allies outnumbered the Red Army during Operation Barbarossa, as the Red Army had strong forces in the Far East to counter the Japanese in Manchuria.
@@lavrentivs9891 It will be a war in Europe, and therefore in the world, and it will begin when the West decides that this time they will be able to defeat the Russians. Globalists need to reduce the world's population not only in Eurasia. The upcoming war should prepare humanity for the inevitability of digital unification.
One of the main things that sets the older and the newer movies apart is the hip shooting. Looking at the older ones it seems like every single engagement with automatic weapons involved firing from the hip which is naturally a waste of ammo, unless you're caught by a surprise.
Another thing in old movies is that guys are constantly being caught by surprise be enemies coming up from behind them or the side and are easily wiped out before they can react. Experienced soldiers are rarely caught by complete surprise like that. They are also usually dug in and have to be gradually pried out of their positions. But that doesn't look as exciting and dramatic on a movie screen.
I own this movie, it wasn't supposed to be released in America, and the copys were confiscated, I purchased mine from action time videos, and someone showed up to confiscate it, I already purchased it, about a week later I went in to action time, and the owner said that a private security firm was going around the country collecting up the copys they could find, I have had mine for 36 years, and it's rare in America, and a treasure!
А я удовлетворен мллион власовцеа триста тьісяч армии Каменского,29,30 русская дивизия СС 120 000 а ешо донские и кубанские казаки.И енто на фоне 18 000 СС гальічина.Которьіе в совке небьіли и предать енто не могли.Во ваши дидьі прославилися.
I rode to work for a couple years with a guy that was drafted and drove a tank on the Eastern Front. When he was drunk ' a almost everyday occurrence' sometimes he would talk about the war. He was telling me you never see one t-34 they come in groups. When you see a t-34 you turn around and Drive to the anti-tank guns. Ground troops would go to ground and let the t34 is Passover them. Besides the anti-tank guns they would call in stukas armed with 2 anti-tank cannons one under each wing between the stukas and the anti tank guns most of the time the t-34s or what was left of them would retreat. They then would attack the t 34 s shooting into the back of them. If this doesn't sound right to you it didn't always work and the Germans did lose the war. Paul remembers the beginning of the end was when you would call for stukas and because of Russian air superiority none would come.
My grandfather was at the eastern Front '39 to '45. He told me exactly (!), what your friend said. Combined handgrenades, spezialisiert anti-tank-explosives used by the infantry, air support by stukas or directing them in front of the 8.8 Flak or pak (anti-tank-guns). Benny, germany Greetings from germany
@@benediktpress2383 Paul has been gone some years now, but I always have been glad that I knew him. Ever the constant reminder that not all Germans were Nazis and evil just young man drafted into the army. These children soldiers had to do what our children soldiers had to do. Politics are always irrelevant to Frontline combat soldiers.
@@jackharter660 "Politics always has nothing to do with soldiers fighting on the front line." ... But now Europe, which supplied Hitler with weapons, is supplying the Nazi and corrupt regime in Ukraine with weapons, which has been killing people in the Donbas for 9 years, burning people in cities (Odessa, May 2, 2014). Europe and its policies do not change.
I have this epic film on dvd, first I saw it I could not get the theme tune at the beginning of the film out of head for days, I can hear it now watching this
Ну, да, а потом они остановились и начали стрелять. После чего, обогнали пехоту и заглохли в 2 метрах от фрицев. А потом заехали в заводской корпус... Клюква вечна.
Esta fue la primera película de guerra que me impactó, luego de estar acostumbrado a ver solo la versión hollywoodense del ejercito estadounidense tanto en Europa como en Asia y África, y siempre como los héroes máximos. Esta versión, en mi caso personal siendo un niño, la ví en los 80s y me mostró por primera vez en la vida a personajes alemanes y soviéticos dándome otra perspectiva de aquella guerra. Fue a su vez la primera vez que vi las tomas de acciones de combate como si fueren en primera persona y eso realmente me sacó de cuadro y me hizo amar esta película. Gracias papá por mostrarme tremenda película por vhs, siempre hablabas de ella con fascinación, nunca censuraste alguna escena estando a tu lado mirando con pasión.
@@user-wc1ow8gz9v si he visto algunas aunque incompletas y no recuerdo sus nombres. Creo que hasta una espacial me parece, una tal Solaris si mal no recuerdo. Será motivo para indagar más y verlas
+Cole Fritts Normally USA is playing the good guys. Maybe this is a cold war movie showing the evil Soviets against the heroic Germans. All USA movies show the bad guys to be played by whomever is in the USAs Crosshairs. Normal USA public relations / propaganda.
Went to see it at the pictures in 1977. Still my favourite war film. Sam Pekinpah films were always great to see. Wasn't until 30 years later I read the book.
Liked it very much that both sides sustained horrible and not too unrealistic casualties and that even the "protagonist" soldiers make mistakes (like throwing the grenade too short). It's not the usual invincible jedi-terminators vs. stormtrooper-lemmings BS (which is only appropriate when Arnold Schwarzenegger plays in a movie, then 400:0 kill ratios are fine xD) Haven't seen any more of Cross of Iron - does it stay this balanced throughout?
+boycot gugle The reality was not very balanced at all. The Germans killed many hundreds of thousands more Russians than they themselves sustained in losses. This was mostly due to the vast gap in military structure that the Germans enjoyed throughout most of the war. Only generals Konev and Zhukov maintained any real sort of parity to German generals like Manstein and Guderian.
Commander Shepherd "Many hundreds of thousand times as many Russians than they lost themselves." Ah, right. So the Germans gloriously captured Stalingrad, losing 100 men while killing 10 million. Sorry, I had forgotten!
Tyler Chapman Yes yes, thank you. I'm well aware of that. I was just making fun of that guy above who suggested the Germans killing thousands upon thousands of times more than they lost. Right. That wasn't the case. It was in big encirclement battles (Minsk etc.) where the German high command really did an outstanding job and casualty numbers on both sides are horribly uneven. However, when looking at individual close combat scenarios like those depicted here, casualties usually approach 1:1, as suddenly force multipliers like aircraft support, weapon technology, good campaign planning etc. do not play such a major role. Zee dirty Russian can always just cut your throat when you sleep, if he ain't got no bullets xD The same was true later in the war as well, only with switched sides. On the campaign map, the Soviets may have wiped out a whole army group, but when fighting SS and Volkssturm in the cities of east Prussia, casualties can't be avoided.
There are a lot of unrealistic moments in this fragment. First tanks go like they are invincible (crashing those concrete dragon teeth like carton boxes=), next moment they totally explode from a mine on a track. This will sure destroy the track and immobilize the machine, but why the whole tank will explode like it was detonated from inside? And those stupid tactics moments, when a tank advances without an infantry support. Or going inside of a building and trying to blow it up when being inside (facepalm) - that was an epic stupidity.
Buenas noches, este film ha permanecido a la vista de cineastas, que apreciamos el séptmo arte, no hay razón alguna para que se nos prive de disfrutar esta joya cinematográfica. les agradeceré que la suban lo más rápido posible para que la podamos disfrutar. Gracias
The chapters in the novel, The Cross of Iron, dealing with the Soviet offensive at Krimskaya provide a more accurate description of the battle than portrayed in the movie. But the screenplay took parts of the book and mixed them up so the scenes don't follow the flow of the novel. The most terrifying parts of the book deal with the fighting outside and inside a massive factory at Novorosiysk on the Black Sea coast. This is where Steiner and his men were betrayed in the novel, quite unlike the scene in the movie. The screenplay also had issues with German ranks and the positions they held in the German Army by late-1943, the period of time that the movie attempted to depict. Thus, LT Meyer in the movie is portrayed as platoon leader when in fact he was a company commander in the novel. Captain Stransky is a company commander in the movie when he was a battalion commander in the book. Hollywood had a mirror-imaging bias. Thus, if American lieutenants were platoon leaders and captains company commanders, then this must have been the case with the Germans too. But reality isn't a perfect mirror image. In the German Army lieutenants normally led companies and captains often led battalions. I like the movie, but the novel is a work of art. If possible, read The Willing Flesh, which is the unabridged version of the Cross of Iron. An English- language version was printed in Great Britain, but copies are hard to find. I lucked out on Ebay. It's about 70 pages longer than the otherwise excellent abridged version and gives more depth to key personalities, particularly Steiner, but also Lieutenant Colonel Brandt, the regimental commander (the movie depicts him as a battalion commander--wrong again.).
I read The Willing Flesh years before Cross of Iron even came out. Perhaps that's why I've never warmed to the movie. That said, the movie's look is good, and Coburn makes a good Steiner, although when I read the novel, the Steiner I visualised looked more like Richard Burton , who oddly enough did end up playing Steinerin the awful "Breakthrough".
The book is way way better. All the points you raise are valid, but tbh, I do think the structure of the film maintains narrative tension a bit better. Especially given they only had 90 minutes. Steiner in the book is a much more complex character... (Sometimes I find him almost hateful, if understandable).
I was thinking about how they should update the sound effects in older movies like this because the scenery is really nice. It would immensely enhance the quality. Especially the sounds of firing and explosion. They are really out of date.
Unfortunately the sound effects are added in post production from library sound effects that in some cases dated back to the '40s. The most annoying sound effects are those electronic ricochets that were used in war movies and other types of films for decades.
I have to say the explosions look pretty realistic... No ridiculous fireballs. They did a good job with the effects... The editing on the other hand. This was edited by an insane person.
Красиво сняли, приятно смотреть. Как качественную порнушку, вот только как всегда в ней нет настоящей любви))) в сюжете дыры танки прут без пехоты, у немцев довольно скудное вооружение, где фаустпатроны и панцершреки во времена 43-45 годов( когда на вооружении СССР стояли т34-85), их немцы как консервные банки выпускали. Где пулеметы мг-34(или 43) наводящие ужас своей скорострельностью. В общем немцы тоже не дураками были и давали так не хило прикурить и не бегали если что то могли ещё делать, а наши были не такими уж дураками, стратегию наступления знали как Библию...
