Talk:A Bridge Too Far

Trivia

Background

Their mission was to seize and hold a series of critical bridges in time for their ground armored and infantry divisions to arrive. It was the largest Airborne operation ever attempted. The title is based on a historical quote by British Lieutenant-General Frederick "Boy" Browning (portrayed in the film by Dirk Bogarde) who feared early on that they were being too ambitious and famously declared "I think we may be going a bridge too far." In the film, we only hear this line in retrospect, when General Browning mentions that he said it, to a disgusted General Roy Urquhart (Sean Connery), after the disaster that befell the British 1st Airborne at Arnhem.

Production

The film is an epic telling of the Allied Airborne operation code-named 'Market-Garden', in which 35,000 American, British and Polish Paratroopers were flown 300 miles and dropped behind enemy lines in Nazi-occupied Holland. The film had a mega budget for its time, $22 Million in 1976 (the film was released in 1977), however the producer, Joseph E. Levine, pre-sold the distribution rights all over the world (and to tempt them, used American and Foreign movie stars who had drawing power all over the world). Ultimately the distributors ended up paying Levine $26 Million for the rights to all of the domestic and foreign markets, thus making it one of the first films to make a profit, before a single screening. However, the film did not do so well in the theaters and received mixed review, so the various distributors around the world, each bore the brunt of the box office disappointments.

Holland Landings

The production faithfully reproduced the Airborne landings in Holland with numerous planes and paratroopers, all done without the use of visual effects.

Leopard Mk I mocked up as a German Panther

For the filming of the German armor, modern era Leopard Mk I tanks were mocked up to resemble the Panther tank.

Notice the marks on the gun mantlet. Also notice how the modern sights and smoke grenade launchers are covered up in the movie. Also note the shape of the driver's hatch.

Leopard Tank Discussion

Looks like a mocked Patton -Markost 14:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It can't be a Patton, the driver's hatch is off to the right. Why can't this be a Leopard? It certainly looks like one to me. --funkychinaman 15:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

hahaha, it certainly looks like the model TOY of the Leopard. If you can find a google pic of that version of the leopard and post is here I would be grateful. All the pics I can find look nothing like this.

Well, it's obviously vis-modded, but it still looks like an early model, an Leopard 1A1 or 1A2. The hatches are in the right place, and the shape of the hull seems unchanged. It looks like they built something on top of the turret to make it a bit more square and to cover up some of the more modern looking features, like the sights. It looks like they also added a muzzle brake and German WWII style skirts. Check out the photos in the link below. The first one you can see the four protrusions on the mantlet. The later photos show that those are for mounting for some equipment. You can also see in the picture above the mountings for the IR searchlight. [1] According to IMDb, the filming was done in the Netherlands, and the Dutch used Leopard 1s. --funkychinaman 16:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks. When I originally did the page, I originally wrote the it WAS a Leopard primarily because I knew it was filmed in the Netherlands and they probably used some NATO tank for the shots, but all the pics I could find were later Leopard variants with the Chobham style reactive armor which look nothing like the other Leopard tanks. :) That's the perfect shot to prove it's a Leopard! :) MoviePropMaster2008 01:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think when most people picture a Leopard 1, it's one of the newer ones with the welded hulls, rather than the older ones with the cast hulls, probably because they're the only ones still in service. If you keep going on that the link I provided, they even mention A Bridge Too Far, and they posted the photo that's here as well as another photo of the Leopard crossing a bridge head on. In that one, you get to see the rear of the hull, and the shape of the radiators. --funkychinaman 03:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Historical Notation

Was the operation a failure?

The movie's dark ending is harsh, yet historically accurate. The Allies never made it into Arnhem, the Allied invasion was halted outside Nijmegen effectively cutting off more than 10,000 British paratroopers trapped in Arnhem. Surrounded, the men of the 1st Airborne fought on for seven days, refusing to yield the North side of Arnhem bridge to a superior force, finally, after it was decided that Operation Market-Garden could not succeed, the Allies began to fall back. 8,000 British soldiers of the 1st Airborne were left behind at the mercy of the Nazis and the Dutch would not see liberation for another 7 months.

There's plenty of sites that discuss the operation, but just to summarize the operation.

The Operation failed in its main objective, which was to open a route across the river Rhine into the Rhur district of Germany. There were of course many more practical objectives which were obtained which probably weren't planned but claimed after the operation. Reasons for the failure are well portrayed in the film, these are the Air Force's refusal to land 1st British Airborne Division close to Arnhem Bridge and Guards Armoured Divisions slowness in reaching Arnhem. One other reason which isn't portrayed in the film probably due to General Browning's already portrayal as the villain for ignoring intelligence reports of panzers in Arnhem, was Browning's specific order to General Gavin to not take Nijmegen Bridge until he had secured the heights south east of Nijmegen. This led directly to the 82nd's problems as the Germans had valuable time to fortify the area around the bridge, and forced Gavin to wait for GAD to support his troops with their tanks to take the bridge.

Discussion

K98k

quote: A boy drafted into the Wehrmacht fights the Americans with his K98 - 7.92x57mm (this is actually no K98k, it is a type of Mauser System, but look at the rear sight. (Are you sure? It just looks like the rear sight is pulled all the way up for a high angle of fire, something a soldier would NOT do when engaging targets closer than a hundred yards, but this is a last ditch barely teenage conscript so I would assume he's not very well trained.....)

Yes, I´m sure, on the other pic it is better to see, they use mauser system rifles, but not all of them were K 98k. the k98k has a relativly flat rear sight, the rifles on this http://www.abload.de/img/btf_k98_05a50mr82d2.jpg pic, use another rearsight, called bogenvisier in german. same rifle type the boy used.

they are looking like shortened Gewehr 98. this was a modification made in big numbers to solve rifle shortage at the end of the war.

pic of gewehr 98: http://www.abload.de/img/gew98o1xe.jpg look at the rear sight! the rifle sights in the movie are not pulled up.

pic of a real k98k: http://www.mauser.org/rifles/K98k%20German/GermanK98-02_1200.jpg

note the small differences. ;-)

Thanks for the pics, but thats irrelevant because, The Pics of the K98 on IMFDB and the Geweher 98 on IMFDB are of my guns.... So I know what these rifles look like. Again I'm not contesting the difference between the two rifles, I ALREADY KNOW the difference since I own both of them, but I'm saying that the screenshot can be deceptive. I will look for possible better pics from the film. MoviePropMaster2008 17:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

M1911

Actually, the .455 Colt M1911s (not A1s) were purchased in WW1 for the Royal Flying Corps / RAF, but they were chambered in .455 Webley & Scott Auto as used in the M1913 Webley & Scott auto issued to the Royal Navy and Royal Horse Artillery (later passed on to the RAF). Most ended up being converted to .45ACP so they could use the same ammo as the many M1911A1s acquired as lend-lease, issued mainly to paras and commandos before the Canadian-made Hi Powers started arriving in early 1945.

So you're saying that the M1911s would probably by .45 acp chambered at this time anyway. Correct? that's good to know. I know for a fact that the film used .45 acp blanked guns for the actors. MoviePropMaster2008 17:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Definately would have been a .45. The .455s were purchased for the RAF because they chambered the same round as the Webley & Scott autos they'd received from the army - who'd gotten rid of them precisely because they didn't chamber the standard round. Para troops were army, even the glider pilots were - only the Germans put airborne forces under the airforce umbrella. The Brits acquired M1911A1s lend-lease and issued them mostly to Para and Commando units. It's probably a mistake giving Uruqhart a 1911 and not an A1, though at the time he joined British officers purchased their own sidearm and he might have bought a 1911 and kept it after the practice was abolished. - Nyles

Sure it's very plausible that the general had purchased a 1911 chambered in .455 W&S Auto. Why not? Generals (even in the airborne) aren't expected to actually engage in combat.So logistics wouldn't really be a concern for him. A couple boxes of pistol ammo in his Bergen (isn't that what the Brits called ther rucksack?)and a couple spare magazines on his pistol belt and he's good to go. If a general is shooting his sidearm something has gone really wrong. Case in point the sequence where he is trapped in the city and unable to reach his command would be an example of something going really wrong. I know I'm working really hard here, but I like the movie. --Jcordell 04:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, I seem to remember in a few scenes seeing German soldiers carrying Gewehr 98s - appropriate for rear-echelon garrison troops.

If you can remember the scene or timecode, I will screencap them if I can MoviePropMaster2008 17:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

if you watch 2:55:58 of this movie you will see germans with garands

Sorry guys

Since I created and built 99% of this page, I'm eliminating the film template, which is different than the way we did film pages when this site first started. You're free to use this template on pages you are the primary architect on. The differences are very slight, but I have always preferred the classic IMFDB page format, not the new one. Since there was never a consensus to change all pages over (and that the differences are very slight and probably not noticeable to the casual viewer), I intend to keep all pages I work on in the 'classic style'. Thanks. MoviePropMaster2008 07:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

General Gavin's Garand

Shouldn't it be noted that the film did portray General Gavin accurately, showing him carrying a M1 Garand? He indeed did carry a Garand into battle, contrary to most other general officers who only carried pistols(Colt 1903 Hammerless or M1911(A1)) this was a well known habit of him.217.87.217.106 11:01, 20 March 2011 (CDT)

German troops with Garands?

Near the end of the film, German troops are seen descending upon the wounded British troops with these rifles. Are the M1 Garands? --Ben41 19:48, 21 September 2011 (CDT)

Would have been a distinct possibility since a large number of ressuply drops fell into German hands and these included not only normal supplies but weapons and ammo as well. --Charon68 20:23, 4 March 2012 (CST)

Sherman Tank Trivia

Someone wrote that some of the Shermans in the film are mock-ups built over Landrovers, this is incorrect. According to the DVD commentry the mock-up Shermans were built by taking casts off the Shermans they had and molding fibreglass shells of the tank, these were then placed on VW Beetles. They're very difficult to spot as they made the tracks to turn as well, if you look carefully the tracks are about an inch from touching the ground.

Landrovers were used in the film but these were used to simulate German armoured cars, specifically they mocked them up as SdKfz 222's and SdKfz 231's. You can find out more on these vehicles at IMCDB's website.--The Mercenary (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2012 (EDT)

Are you sure you are getting that the right way round, everything I have ever read said that they were based on a land rover chassis. The Kübelwagens were Beetle based replicas though. The SdKfz 222 mock is supposedly based on a 1951 Dodge truck chassis (apparently it was sold in a British military magazine in 2009 for £6,500, and this is what it was described as), but not sure about the SdKfz 231. --commando552 (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2012 (EDT)

On the DVD commentry i think its John Richardson who definately says "We built the other Shermans by taking casts off the ones we already had and placing them on VW Beetles, if you notice carefully the tracks go round but they don't touch the ground". I must admit i was suprised as i didn't think that Beetles could manage the weight of the mocked up Sherman. The info on the 222's were for those used on the 'Grabner's Attack' sequence, where they had the Frundsberg Recce Btl charge across Arnhem(Deventer) bridge. It could mean they used a Dodge for another sequence, it was a huge film that was shot over 3 countries. Those on the bridge attack were built on Landrovers, other vehicles included a Polish halftrack which resembled the German ones nearly exactly.--The Mercenary (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2012 (EDT)

For those still interested in this discussion, please check Youtube which has a charming local TV news item from 1977 with behind-the-scenes shots of the (mock up) tanks. From 1min51sec onwards there's an interview with what seems to be the (very) British prop master who gives some details about the arrangements for the tanks. On behalf of all Dutch, I apologize for the rotten Dutch spoken by the tv presenter :-), PeeWee055 (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2014 (EDT)

Question about the M1 Garand's in this movie and another.

I noticed that in this movie and The Big Red One (1980) that the M1's barrels are slightly longer than usual.

This is from A Bridge Too Far.

This is from The Big Red One.

Notice how the barrels are ever so slightly longer than a normal Garand

M1 Garand semiautomatic Rifle with leather M1917 sling - .30-06

Were these all fake props or was this some kind of bank adapter for the rifle? Sorry if the pictures are crappy. I just pulled them from the site because I'm too lazy to get my own.-Gunner5

No they were actual Garands it's just the blank firing adapter(s) (BFA) that makes the barrel seem longer. --Charon68 (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2014 (EDT)

And the pics are not crappy.--Ben41 (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2014 (EDT)

Didn't mean to offend you. I just meant they are the best ones I could find on here and I was sorry if you couldn't see them well enough._Gunner5

Rare Sten grip

I was visiting the excellent Airborne Museum in Oosterbeek (Holland) which tells the heroic story of the battle for the Arnhem bridge, the last Market Garden bridge. Among the many guns on display (all of them apparently used in Arnhem in September 1944) was this Sten which had a rare grip I have never seen before.

I checked and it does not look like any of the grips I can see on the internet. I was told that this was a ‘Polish grip’ but no further details were available. I don ‘t remember seeing it in the movie either, so does anybody know more about it? Was it standard issue to certain units or something put together by an individual paratrooper? Thanks for letting me know, PeeWee055 (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2014 (EDT)

1st Polish Parachute Brigade participated in Operation Market Garden so "Polish grip" may belong to Stens used by Polish paratroopers. But the reason of such grip is beyond my comprehension. Greg-Z (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2014 (EDT)

There were limited numbers of pistol griped Stens, which were more compact at the expense of accuracy and comfort. I have seen them referred to as either "para" or "commando" Stens, and the exact design of the pistol grip seems to vary quite a lot but I have never seen one that looked quite like that (just google "Sten pistol grip" and you will see the more typical kinds). This looks cruder than is typical though, and based on how the cross sectional profile of the metal is actually bent into a U and the general simple appearance, my guess is that this was done by chopping down the "Canadian" type stock in to a simple rod, bending it into shape, and then welding the free end back onto the mounting plate. --commando552 (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2014 (EDT)

Thanks, that seems like the most plausible explanation, PeeWee055 (talk) 03:26, 27 June 2014 (EDT)

They were designed for the SOE but some managed to find their way into the hands of Pathfinder's and Reconnaissance Squadron troops. I believe there were about 3 or may be 4 different grip designs made, some with a 'wiggly' grip that was more comfortable for the shooter's hand.--The Mercenary (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2014 (EDT)

Found an image of a member of the 1st Polish Parachute Brigade that may lend some credibility to this grip being called a 'Polish' grip.

Source: “For King and Country - British Airborne Uniforms, Insignia & Equipment in World War II” – Harlan Glenn

Possibly this particular grip was favoured by the Polish 1st, with other units opting for different designs, PeeWee055 (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2014 (EDT)

That is not the same as the grip that is in the museum pic you posted though, it is one of the factory types that was used on the para/commondo/SOE Stens. This one is made from a flat bar us opposed to a hollow U section, and it has a squared off back to it rather than being rounded. It appears closer to this one which was one of the grips used on the experimental pistol-gripped Stens. --commando552 (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2014 (EDT)