The Tanks Are Coming (1951) User Reviews

I'd Rather Have Their Equipment...

[xerses13 · 6/10 · 14 August 2007]

THE TANKS ARE COMING (1951) covered our (U.S. Army) Armored SpearHead and its problems during the war in Europe (WWII). The main problem being our Tanks were just not as good as our opponents the Nazi Germans. A captured German Tank Commander once commented "One (1) of our tanks are better then twelve (12) of yours, but you always have a thirteenth (13th)". True, we could (and the Russians) out produce by a factor of ten (10) to one (1) or more. That did not help the crews inside these coffins when inadequate armor (and firepower) gave little or no protection at all.

The movie starts off clearly showing these inadequacies. As our Tank Platoon with Shermans takes on a German Panther (a disguised M36 sitting in). Our shells bounce off, theirs go right through. The film illustrates this well with the guns sound effects. Our guns sound like cap pistols the Germans like thunder. The story goes on from there as determination and guts have to overcome technological limitations. Toward the end our hero's get a M26 Pershing which had both the Armor and Gun to take on their opponents in a equitable manner. A little late for those who already had made the supreme sacrifice.

It took awhile but lessons were learned and are reflected in the current equipment of the U.S. ARMY. The M1A2 Abrams and the other Armored Vehicles are World Class and second to none. Their only equivalents are also made/used by our allies (for the most part). One (1) further note this film should not be confused with the Warner Brothers Short of the same name made in 1941, also reviewed.

Realistic Action Scenarios Lessened by Some Hokey Personal Dynamics

[Uriah43 · 5/10 · 12 July 2017]

This movie begins 40 days after the D-Day landing in Normandy with an element of the American 3rd Armored Division known as C Company preparing to engage German units near the vaunted Siegfried Line. Unfortunately, as the company advances one of the platoon sergeants named "SSG Joe Davis" (Michael Stelle) is seriously wounded and as a result another NCO by the name of "SSG F.A. Sullivan" (Steve Cochran) is selected to be his replacement. However, SSG Sullivan turns out to be nothing like his predecessor as he soon gains a reputation of being overly-ambitious, arrogant and reckless. And needless to say his penchant for taking dangerous risks doesn't sit well with the tank crews under him. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this was a decent World War 2 film that featured some good, realistic combat action scenes. One particular example was the manner in which the Sherman tanks had to maneuver to take out the Panther tanks from the side as they were no match one-on-one. Likewise, the scenario of having soldiers escape from their burning tanks and subsequently acquiring another Sherman tank as a replacement was also quite accurate as well. On the flip side, however, I didn't particularly care for some of the scenarios involving the personal dynamics of the individual characters. The scene involving "PFC George 'Ike' Eisenhower" (James Dobson) and the division commander was especially hokey. Be that as it may, I thought that this was an adequate film all things considered and I have rated it accordingly. Average.

lotsatanks

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 8 July 2020]

It's 40 days after the Normandy landing. An American tank squad is rolling in France and heading for Germany. Sgt Sullivan takes over the squad after a devastating lost and the men do not care for their hard-driving leader. Ike is concerned about their tanks' inferior armor but a general assures him that the new tanks are coming.

Tanks. Tanks. Everywhere. Tanks. Tanks. There's lots of tanks. It's nice to see the old tanks and a lot of the equipment. I don't recognize the faces who seem to be a lot of nameless character actors. The action is good although they are often filmed statically along with incorporating some real war footage. This is pretty good for a B-movie.

Great cast

[gregorhauser · 18 June 2004]

What a great cast this is. Steve Cochran is perfect in the role of the hard uncompromising. His character is near to a villain what he often played. But "Sully" turns out as a real hero in an "Audie-Murphy-style". Also very interesting is Philip Carey as Lieutenant. He only was 25 at this time but he radiates wisdom and superior style. All the supporting players are also good although I only knew John McIntire before. The characters are well developed and Lewis Seiler also directed the action sequences very thrilling.

All in all it is an entertaining movie which certainly only shows one side of the medal.

Tanks for the Memories

[kapelusznik18 · 6/10 · 27 May 2015]

****SPOILERS*** Story of the 3rd armored division in it's battles from the breakout from Saint Lo in Northern France to the teeth of the what was called impregnable 350 mile Siegfried Line. That's on the German Belgium & French border with tough and indestructible , he never as much got a scratch during entire movie, Staff Sgt. Francis Aloysius, or just "Sully" to his fellow GI's, Sullivan played by the ruggedly handsome Steve Cochran. It's Sully's leadership and determination that in fact has his tank unit breach the Sigfried Line and make possible the invasion of Germany in late 1944 but it came at a steep price. With just the US Military, not including the British Canadian & French allies, suffering well over 200,000 casualties, with some 50,000 KIA, in the process.

Hated by his men at first for driving them for days without sleep against the far less in number but more superior in experience and firepower & experience German Panzer units who's kill ratio was something like 10 to 1 against US armor. Never the less the spearhead 3rd armored reached the Sigfried Line with it's massive tank traps bunkers and honeycombed with underground tunnels way ahead of schedule just before the winter set in. And for some five months fought a seesaw and stalemate battle with the German forces that cost it the loss of some 75% of it's men and almost all its tanks that were quickly replaced which the German losses weren't. During that time it was "Sully" who kept his unit, the 3rd armored, together by leading from the front, not the back, in his lead tank that really inspired his men. The one person who hated "Sully's" guts the most Pvt. Danny Klowicz, Paul Picerni,soon realized what a real fine "Joe" he really was by giving credit to his battle hardened men. That in a letter to his CO. the Sleeping, whom "Sully woke up with a stiff kick in the butt, Capt. Bob Horner played by Robert Horton, who at age 91 is still round with us today, giving them all the glory in his drive to Siegfried Line without once mentioning himself.

There's also in "Sully's unit German born American GI Heinrich "Heinie" Weinburger, Robert Boon, who's main reason for being in the US Army is to free his grandparents from living under the Nazi dictatorship. It was when "Heinie's" grandparents were freed that the stone faced and unfeeling Sgt. "Sully" broke down for the first and only time in the movie and showed, what seemed to be almost impossible for him, genuine emotion even though after all they were Germans. The screenplay was partly written by Samual "Sam" Fuller who some 30 years later wrote and directed a very similar film, this time in living color not black and white, about the 1944-45 war in Western Europe "the Big Red One" that in real life back in WWII he was an actual member of.

Thanks a lot

[GianfrancoSpada · 6/10 · 17 September 2023]

Interesting films for war movie enthusiasts, where it's possible to witness a substantial deployment of Sherman tanks and the famous first US 90 mm-gunned tank (M26 Pershing), although erroneously utilized since it did not become operational until February 1945, rather than in the fall of 1944 when the film is set.

Aside from the display of these military assets, which were still abundant at the time of filming, only a few years after the conclusion of WW2 and with a continued strong American military presence in liberated territories, the movie doesn't offer much more. The narrative is quite lacking, and the characters are only superficially sketched.

The use of real footage, well integrated with the fictional sequences filmed for the occasion, is interesting. The cinematography stands out solely due to its subject matter, and on very few occasions does it contribute more to the storytelling. The film earns a passing grade, but nothing more, as it is replete with the typical resources of American war-themed cinema, which doesn't make an effort to disguise its underlying purpose, which is war propaganda. However, we are accustomed to this, as this particular cinematic vein always has to contend with this aspect.

These reviews are,IMHO..... VERY charitable!!!

[roger-604 · 2/10 · 26 May 2015]

While this movie was a fairly non-objectionable way to kill 90 minutes since nothing else was really on, I have to say that most of the acting was pure HAM! I was even laughing out-loud as Marconi was gasping and wheezing (for dramatic effect, I suppose) during the radioing-in of the coordinate information for the artillery barrage. Then there was Sullivan's on then off again hayseed accent and mispronunciation of words. There's the fact that MAJORITY of the equipment (tanks and assorted vehicles) that are period incorrect. The blatant insubordination of just about everybody to their superiors. The miraculous overnight (literally) transformation of Sgt. Sullivan from reckless and abusive horse's arse to everyone's buddy and "stand-up" tank commander. Let's not forget the clips of actual scratched and grainy WWII battle footage that was spliced (without ANY attempt of matching whatsoever) together with the newly filmed footage. The terrain of Fort Knox and surrounding areas of Kentucky used as various locations in Germany again without any serious attempt of blending/matching to real European terrain. There was even a bright and sparkly 1950's style concrete and steel overpass in one shot. And the list just goes on. Now.... like I said, It wasn't a hideous movie. At least there were cool tank battles to watch but the acting! Eeeegads!!! Overall I'd say this reminded me of a cheesy 1950's B-grade sci-fi movie (fun but unbelievable) except the subject was American WWII tankers. Anyway...... that's just one guy's opinion, of course! :^)

Tanks for nuttin'

[Fred_Rap · 3/10 · 27 January 2010]

The director Lewis Seiler followed up his stark, exciting D-Day aftermath saga "Breakthrough" with this utterly humdrum companion piece. The story concerns the Third Armored Division's push through France toward the Siegfried Line, and it's a measure of the film's dramatic shortcomings that the stock shots of Panzer tanks and American iron bellies seem far more compelling than the actual footage.

Steve Cochran brings a spark of surly charisma to the proceedings as a bluntly unsentimental sergeant who takes over a squadron consisting of some of the dullest, least engaging, most ill-defined dog-faces ever to battle it out on a Hollywood sound stage; these ciphers almost make one long for the clichéd likes of William Bendix's Brooklyn lug and Richard Jaeckel's combat-green kid.

The dreadful screenplay by Robert Hardy Andrews has the temerity to give Cochran a change of heart, and by the climax the snarling top kick is shaking hands with cowering German citizens and even cuddling a stray pooch! Crusty old warrior Sam Fuller is credited with the story; he must have choked on his stogie when he saw the finished product. With Phil Carey, Mari Aldon, Paul Picerni, Robert Horton, Harry Belaver.

Probably Warner Brothers' best war movie of the era

[jbraptor · 10/10 · 27 September 2005]

During WWII, there were two kinds of war movies: The musical and/or comedy flag-waver for selling war bonds, and the serious flag-waver for selling war bonds. But after the war, returning veterans wrote and directed darker, more cynical movies reflecting what they experienced in the war.

Warner Brothers didn't much care for the cynical war movies. They made pretty much the same kinds of war movies they'd made during the war, but with somewhat bigger budgets. In comparison with the darker movies made by other studios, these WB war movies come off as comic books, a description I use with the utmost affection.

These movies didn't deal with the gore and high cost of war. They continued to glorify the fighting man and, to some extent, his war machines. Warner Brothers made such good war movies as BREAKTHROUGH, TARGET ZERO. By the middle 1950s, WB got too big for their britches and made either over-budgeted dogs like BATTLE CRY or under-budgeted dogs like DARBY'S RANGERS.

But for a few, short years WB reigned supreme and left us with treasures from the early '50s. THE TANKS ARE COMING is probably their best. For what it's worth, it's still the only "tank" movie of any note.

Trivia: George O'Hanlon (Tucker, the tank driver) was the original "George Jetson." You'll recognize his voice immediately.

Tanks a million, a million tanks to Warner Brothers

[bkoganbing · 4/10 · 17 January 2019]

The best thing that The Tanks Are Coming is good use of actual combat footage well integrated into the film. A whole lot like the Sands Of Iwo Jima in the Pacific Theater. Unfortunately said footage is tied to a rather pedestrian story.

As a lad I remember reading those Sergeant Rock comic books and watching Steve Cochran and the rest of the cast I got the feeling that I was looking at one of those comic books come to life. It shocks me though that Samuel Fuller wrote the original story. That man certainly went on to do bigger and better things in the war film genre.

Not the best work for any of the cast and crew.

A Necessary Film About US Tanks in WWII

[historian63 · 8/10 · 11 June 2022]

Hollywood has produced hundreds, perhaps thousands, of films about the US Infantry in World War II and other conflicts. Partially this may be cultural, with the lowly dogface rifleman as the everyman hero. Partially it might be logistics, since it is fairly easy to dress and rehearse an infantry squad, even on a sound-stage. (Although this limitation did not seem to prevent large numbers of aviation and naval films using planes and ships.) Off the top of my head, only Battle of the Bulge, Sahara, and Fury have focused at all on tanks and their crews. In all other movies they appear just as nameless support for the infantry.

The drama focuses on Staff Sgt. Sullivan, who replaces a popular platoon sergeant and his conflict with the crew. Sullivan is a hard-driving glory seeker, which causes conflict with subordinates and superiors. There are also several side-plots, the most notable involving a German-born crewman with a special purpose in returning home.

But the real point and beauty of the film is the armored combat. With clear (and somewhat anachronistic) support from the US Army, there is finally a film showing widescale tank maneuvers, using a mixture of combat footage and contemporary scenes courtesy of the Army. This is a desperately needed niche in WWII films.

A few quibbles. I don't complain about the anachronistic supporting vehicles, since very few 1944 standard ones would be available in 1951. But there are a few things that don't quite work. Although Sullivan is almost suicidally brave, some of the maneuvers are too aggressive and would likely get him relieved, and demoted, even when he succeeds. I can't imagine any tank commander deliberately getting hung up on dragon's teeth. Also, Sullivan is assigned as the platoon sergeant, but we never see him doing any leadership beyond his own crew. Finally, there is a short interlude between Sullivan and a female war correspondent that seems to indicate some history is there, but this is never followed up. It is unusual to have a female character in a combat movie that does not develop into someone's romantic interest.