Let me talk as a somehow expert on World War II, and believe me I have also seen other ridiculous and badly fumbled war movies of this kind, such as the 1965 produced "Battle of the Bulge".
What were the producers thinking?
Well, for one, back in 1958 and in 1965 many people really didn't care much about historic accuracy in WWII movies, just because much of the material that would explain such things was not as yet available.
So, what were these movies really like?
Well, call it war adventure/fantasy, since some themes were just ludicrous at best, and in many cases also very inaccurate.
Even "Battle of the Bulge" came out attempting to display one of the most pivotal and actually vital battles of the late part of the war, and despite its two and a half hours in length, managed just to become such an adventure movie without much historical background rather than its title.
For instance, they never actually pointed out where the various skirmishes between U. S. Troops/Tankers and the German Tank Force took place and the uniforms themselves seemed a bit taken from a theatrical wardrobe, rather than being the right ones worn both by German and American soldiers in the latter part of the war.
And as in "Battle of the Bulge" even in "Tank Force" you find fake German Tanks.
Granted, at that time much of the German material was used for scrap, but with some effort producers could have found some remnants, having been delivered to Arab Armies, and seemingly even Israel had some for training.
And yet, depicting Tiger tanks with British Centurions is outlandish at best, just like in "BotB" using Patton Tanks to depict King Tigers was indeed stupid.
But while finding actual Tiger or King Tiger tanks would have been difficult, also because a very few were at any time present in Africa since 1942, or later in Belgium, one could have easily have opted for readily available Panzer IVs and Panzer III, which were easily available from Spain, Arab Countries and as said, even Israel, if anyone had made his homework properly.
Especially the Panzer IV was a formidable foe and many times confused by Americans with a Tiger tank.
Now let's see the British side. They used Cromwells to probably depict Valentines. The Cromwell entered the fray late in WWII and was not used in Africa but vastly employed since D-Day in North-Western Europe.
And then the final insult. Huge Iron Crosses highly visible on the sides of the Centurions and repeated in the front and rear of the same. Add to this a very visible Swastika also painted on the side of these tanks.
This is truly madness. German tanks seldom wore highly visible National insignias on their tanks and vehicles, ever since their bad experience in the Polish Campaign in 1939, where they were used by the Polish Forces to identify them and knock them out.
If ever they would have had small Emblems on their turrets together with the platoon and regiment number (if ever) and in the front and rear the symbol of the Afrika Corps, which was a Palm Tree with a small swastika in its midst, and this, painted in white.
Such gross mistakes could have easily been avoided, but no one seemed to care.
Besides the story in itself is preposterous since no one ever attempted to kill Joseph Goebbels, also because being a very high ranking Official within the Nazi Party had a vast and highly well trained personal guard protecting him that would have immediately reacted by killing the would be killer.
Many were the movies dealing with the African campaign and only a very few actually were of some worth. Not even movies like "Tobruk" or the Italo/French produced "Battle of El Alamein" were or are to be considered serious efforts at depicting the true events, but rather adventurous fictions.
The only exceptions being "The Big Red One", "Patton", "The Desert Fox" and "The Desert Rats", although the former two only depicted two specific events in that Campaign.
More recently, at least in the early millennium did the Italians produce a TV movie also called "El Alamein" depicting a dramatized but at least accurate depiction of that battle.
It is amazing to me to see that no one ever made a serious effort to at least try to come up with something genuine and honest regarding the African Campaign.
But for that matter,, we are still waiting an honest and thorough account of what really happened during the so called Battle of the Bulge, which a movie alone will never be able to fully satisfy, due to its complexity, and that I must assume will only be feasible if produced as a mini series.
Still, this movie is a stinker, at least in my view, and unless you don't really care about historic fact and rather prefer the big bang factor, might still satisfy you, but as a WWII movie it is a completely wasted effort.
I gave it three stars for the efforts made by the cast and stuntmen in it, but if I had been in it as an actor, I would have been ashamed to ever receiving a credit for it.
What were the producers thinking?
Well, for one, back in 1958 and in 1965 many people really didn't care much about historic accuracy in WWII movies, just because much of the material that would explain such things was not as yet available.
So, what were these movies really like?
Well, call it war adventure/fantasy, since some themes were just ludicrous at best, and in many cases also very inaccurate.
Even "Battle of the Bulge" came out attempting to display one of the most pivotal and actually vital battles of the late part of the war, and despite its two and a half hours in length, managed just to become such an adventure movie without much historical background rather than its title.
For instance, they never actually pointed out where the various skirmishes between U. S. Troops/Tankers and the German Tank Force took place and the uniforms themselves seemed a bit taken from a theatrical wardrobe, rather than being the right ones worn both by German and American soldiers in the latter part of the war.
And as in "Battle of the Bulge" even in "Tank Force" you find fake German Tanks.
Granted, at that time much of the German material was used for scrap, but with some effort producers could have found some remnants, having been delivered to Arab Armies, and seemingly even Israel had some for training.
And yet, depicting Tiger tanks with British Centurions is outlandish at best, just like in "BotB" using Patton Tanks to depict King Tigers was indeed stupid.
But while finding actual Tiger or King Tiger tanks would have been difficult, also because a very few were at any time present in Africa since 1942, or later in Belgium, one could have easily have opted for readily available Panzer IVs and Panzer III, which were easily available from Spain, Arab Countries and as said, even Israel, if anyone had made his homework properly.
Especially the Panzer IV was a formidable foe and many times confused by Americans with a Tiger tank.
Now let's see the British side. They used Cromwells to probably depict Valentines. The Cromwell entered the fray late in WWII and was not used in Africa but vastly employed since D-Day in North-Western Europe.
And then the final insult. Huge Iron Crosses highly visible on the sides of the Centurions and repeated in the front and rear of the same. Add to this a very visible Swastika also painted on the side of these tanks.
This is truly madness. German tanks seldom wore highly visible National insignias on their tanks and vehicles, ever since their bad experience in the Polish Campaign in 1939, where they were used by the Polish Forces to identify them and knock them out.
If ever they would have had small Emblems on their turrets together with the platoon and regiment number (if ever) and in the front and rear the symbol of the Afrika Corps, which was a Palm Tree with a small swastika in its midst, and this, painted in white.
Such gross mistakes could have easily been avoided, but no one seemed to care.
Besides the story in itself is preposterous since no one ever attempted to kill Joseph Goebbels, also because being a very high ranking Official within the Nazi Party had a vast and highly well trained personal guard protecting him that would have immediately reacted by killing the would be killer.
Many were the movies dealing with the African campaign and only a very few actually were of some worth. Not even movies like "Tobruk" or the Italo/French produced "Battle of El Alamein" were or are to be considered serious efforts at depicting the true events, but rather adventurous fictions.
The only exceptions being "The Big Red One", "Patton", "The Desert Fox" and "The Desert Rats", although the former two only depicted two specific events in that Campaign.
More recently, at least in the early millennium did the Italians produce a TV movie also called "El Alamein" depicting a dramatized but at least accurate depiction of that battle.
It is amazing to me to see that no one ever made a serious effort to at least try to come up with something genuine and honest regarding the African Campaign.
But for that matter,, we are still waiting an honest and thorough account of what really happened during the so called Battle of the Bulge, which a movie alone will never be able to fully satisfy, due to its complexity, and that I must assume will only be feasible if produced as a mini series.
Still, this movie is a stinker, at least in my view, and unless you don't really care about historic fact and rather prefer the big bang factor, might still satisfy you, but as a WWII movie it is a completely wasted effort.
I gave it three stars for the efforts made by the cast and stuntmen in it, but if I had been in it as an actor, I would have been ashamed to ever receiving a credit for it.