SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Saving Private Ryan - this has been bugging me

38150 views
143 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Saturday, June 26, 2010 4:39 PM

Yes, the M4s in Kelly's Heroes were the ones sold to them post war under Military Assistance Program. They had been rearmed with 76mm guns in the older 75mm turret.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    September 2015
  • From: The Redwood Empire
Posted by Aaronw on Saturday, June 26, 2010 1:14 PM

The Tigers in Kelly's Heroes were built on T-34s too, so much better than the American tanks with a cross on the turret typical of most WW2 movies at the time. The T34s were still in service in Yugoslavia when the film was made in 1970. I believe Oddballs M4s were also borrowed from the Yugoslavian military.

  • Member since
    May 2010
Posted by amphib on Friday, June 25, 2010 6:20 PM

To really experience the goofs in one of these war movies you would need to see it on the deck of an attack transport surrounded by the crew of sailors and the embarked marines.

  • Member since
    January 2008
  • From: Woodbine, MD
Posted by 666Irish on Friday, June 25, 2010 4:16 PM

Well, the movie is only a possibility at the moment. I really haven't heard much about it in a couple of weeks. If it does happen, it will be a movie about D-Day, and it will be filmed in Spain (at least, that's the last I heard on it. They are also talking to the owner about using his two LCVPs.. They were most recently featured in The Pacific.

 

Ya know, New Jersey isn't all that far...I'll let you know when she is up and terrorizing.

She was only a whiskey maker, but he loved her still.

  • Member since
    October 2008
  • From: New Jersey
Posted by oddmanrush on Friday, June 25, 2010 2:52 PM

Yes, I'm aware of this. I believe that they show you a glimpse or two of this tank on the special features disc for the Band of Brothers series. They said it was the same Tiger used in SPR. They also show them doing a little construction on it. The turret is present, and functions. If its not the BoB special features disc, I apologize, but I'm almost positive that is where I saw it. Almost.

By the way Irish, I saw your pics! They are pretty cool! I'm envious that you're that close to it, real Tiger or not, the thing is neat. And you say you might be driving that for a movie soon?

Jon

My Blog: The Combat Workshop 

  • Member since
    January 2008
  • From: Woodbine, MD
Posted by 666Irish on Thursday, June 24, 2010 10:44 PM

Huxy

And for those who don't know, the Tiger tanks in SPR aren't built on a T-34 chassis. They are built around a T-34/85....

 

-Lasse Wink

The man speaks truth. Most of what you will see written about the SPR Tiger is just guesses and most of the time is utter crap. Underneath the 'Tiger' Facade is a demilled, but complete T34/85 (turret and all).  There were a couple of small portions torched out, but other than that it is complete. The main gun fires using an Oxy/Acetylene mix coupled with an igniter, and the hull MG is only a barrel shroud over a piece of plumbing pipe. There is nothing on the back side of it except a spring to hold it in position. the one time in the film where you see the hull MG firing was added in post production.

There were a total of four built, two of which were operational, and two were for close-ups and, ultimately, for destruction.

If anyone has any specific questions about the vehicle, just let me know. The guy I work for owns one of them. I have been in it, on it, and have driven it. Ours is currently in Dillsburg, PA, being fitted with a new engine. The other operable example is on the West Coast.

She was only a whiskey maker, but he loved her still.

  • Member since
    October 2008
  • From: New Jersey
Posted by oddmanrush on Monday, April 12, 2010 7:39 AM

I love IMDB, everything you need to know about any movie...most of the time. Another good site for all questions regarding Saving Private Ryan, check this out http://www.sproe.com/

Jon

My Blog: The Combat Workshop 

  • Member since
    June 2008
  • From: Iowa
Posted by Hans von Hammer on Monday, April 12, 2010 12:31 AM

Shooting Wille was the only time Upham fired his weapon, IIRC...  

If you wanna really see nit-picking, check here:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120815/goofs

 

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Western North Carolina
Posted by Tojo72 on Sunday, April 11, 2010 6:49 PM

thanks for clearing that one up guys

  • Member since
    October 2008
  • From: New Jersey
Posted by oddmanrush on Sunday, April 11, 2010 6:27 PM

They are two different guys. However, the German that kills Miller at the end IS 'steam boat willie', he was folded into an SS unit after his release. But he is not the one that kills Melish. Actor Jeorg Stadler played steam boat willie (who kills Miller and is eventually killed by Upham), while Mac Steinmeier played the man that kills Melish. They bear similar resemblance but are not the same character.

Jon

My Blog: The Combat Workshop 

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Sunday, April 11, 2010 2:51 PM

anthony2779

Got to watch SPR again last night at work again.I have a question: Was the German Soldier who the squad took prisoner and later released "Steamboat Willie",the same one who later killed Melish in the knife fight,and was subsequently shot down by Oppum ? I thought it was but now I am not sure.

No, they looked similar, but the guy who kills Melish is SS while Willie is Heer (Army).

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: Left forever
Posted by Bgrigg on Sunday, April 11, 2010 1:28 PM

Been a while since I've seen SPR, but I don't think it's Steamboat Willie that kills Melish. Steamboat shoots Miller near the end, fatally wounding him, and is then shot by Upham, who won't be fooled again.

So long folks!

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Western North Carolina
Posted by Tojo72 on Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:26 AM

Got to watch SPR again last night at work again.I have a question: Was the German Soldier who the squad took prisoner and later released "Steamboat Willie",the same one who later killed Melish in the knife fight,and was subsequently shot down by Oppum ? I thought it was but now I am not sure.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: 41 Degrees 52.4 minutes North; 72 Degrees 7.3 minutes West
Posted by bbrowniii on Monday, March 29, 2010 9:17 AM

squeakie

 

Darby Ranger were the ones that scaled the cliffs.

gary

Just to clarify a couple of inaccuracies...

-mortars are not rifled

-2nd Ranger Battalion (Rudder's), Easy and Fox Company's, stormed the cliffs at Pont du Hoc on D-Day.  The 1st, 3rd and 4th Battalions (Darby's Rangers aka the 6615 Ranger Force (Provisional)) served in Italy and were pretty well decimated in Januray of '44 at Cisterna.  The Force was officially disbanded in August of '44.  It would not be until 1948 that it was reconstituted (as the 1st Ranger Infantry Battalion).

 

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' - Edmund Burke (1770 ??)

 

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Goffstown, NH
Posted by New Hampshire on Sunday, March 28, 2010 9:30 AM

Bgrigg

 It was, however, their line to hold. Had they been better at politics, perhaps Herr Fuhrer wouldn't have put on britches quite so large? Smile

Absolutely!  I despise Neville Chamberlain and the French for being so submissive to Hitler.  I get pretty angry thinking about the poor Czecks being sold out.  I will admit it might be unfair for me, sitting here many years after the fact and from a country that did not have a big stake in what went on in Europe it is easy for me to say "why did the British and French not do SOMETHING at that particular time".  I can understand that the ghosts of WW1 still haunted the homes and fields of the French and English.  But frankly they should have had the measure of the man (Hitler), and they should have well known that giving up on the Czecks was not going to stop Hitler very long.  They had plenty of time to see what Hitler was made of with the Austria situation that preceeded his attempt on the Czecks.  In my opinion Chamberlin and the French failed BIG time.  So I would agree that it was indeed "their line to hold".  But you also have to acknowledge the very pervasive anti-war/neutrality elements in the U.S. that take some responsibility for holding back full U.S. participation when it was becoming quite obvious we would need to take a side, that it would involve us like it or not, and that the longer we waited the more dire the situation would become. 

The Blitz failed:

The reason the Blitz "failed" (I like to think it stopped), was Hitler decided to break his bond with Stalin and invade Russia. Something I'm sure he felt necessary, even though it was colossally stupid. Having a nasty like Stalin standing so close behind would have worried the hell out of me! The invasion of the USSR required the bulk of the Luftwaffe to move East and brought the Blitz to a complete end. Mind you the advent of radar controlled AA guns and detection stations also gave the British a new way to defend themselves. BTW, my uncle flew Hurricanes during the Battle of Britain, before transferring to the fledgling CRAF where he flew Spitfires providing bomber escort in Sicily and Italy, where my father was fighting. His view was the RAF was pretty darn lucky. The German pilots had to fly over the Channel before they could start fighting, and therefore started off with much less fuel, and were already beginning to tire from flying. The RAF was young, determined and brave, but most of all they were fresh!

Now I'm in perhaps a unique situation. I have a Blitz survivor living with me. My mother in law was bombed out of one home, and evacuated to Canada for the rest of the war. Her mother was bombed out of two more homes (those 'dumb V1 & V2 rockets), and survived until 1999. I've not just talked to survivors, I married into the family! Her recollection is that had Germany kept up the bombing, it would have broken the British. The simple fact is the respite from bombing gave the plucky Brits renewed resolve to keep the battle going.

I've often wondered what would have happened had the US maintained Army and Navy bases in Europe after WWI. They might have had a greater sense of impending doom, and perhaps wouldn't have been quite so unprepared in the Pacific and therefore stopped the Japanese from attacking in the first place.. It may have altered Hitler's plans to invade West, and he may have tried for Russia sooner.

I guess I could use a line from the Matrix movies that went along the lines of "What happened had to happen and could not have happened any other way". Big Smile  There are a lot of factors that went into the Blitz being a failure (from the perspective of non English or Germans)/ Won (if you were English)/ Lost (if you were a German) Wink .  Dowding and his rather revolutionary command system, the fledgling early warning radar systems, the failure of the Germans to realize the importance of this system too late in the game, the saving garce when the Germans changed target focus to cities, the ability of the British industrial system to crank out replacement craft at rates faster than pilots could be trained to fly them, the Germans pulling a large number of their bomber force (the Stukas) from use over Britain, the sheer bravery of the British (and of course Polish, Czeck, Canadian and American's in RAF service) fighter pilots, and of course your mentioned fact that Hitler was stretching himself way to far.  I guess the round about point I am trying to make is that in this war there were so many factors that caused the outcome.  Could a change in just one of those minor details have been the straw that breaks the camels back?  Hypothetically yes.  But in the end I just deep down feel that the war would still have been won by the Allies.

Brian

  • Member since
    June 2008
  • From: Iowa
Posted by Hans von Hammer on Sunday, March 28, 2010 8:55 AM

My point here is that you wouldn't use a P51D as a low level ground attack plane. You'd use a P51A or even a P40 or P47. The P51A had equale if not slightly better performance at very low levels that the "D" model.

Well, you'd be wrong if you're talking about ground attacks...  The P-51A vs the D at low level, sure, the A would have been on about equal footing with a Me-109, and the D would be out-turned in a dogfight, but since we're talking about ground attack, they're both about the same, and have the exact same vulnerability, which is the cooling system (Goes for the A-36 as well)... However, Dad flew plenty of low-level attacks as a Mustang driver... They were routinely asssigned to hit targets of oppourtunity after they'd let the bombers go, and I also know that he flew a number of sorties in the Normandy area and they shot up a number of German convoys and airfields...

Another thing, at least as near as I can tell, the P-51A wasn't even in 8th AF service by Jun 44... All the US Mustang units were equipped with B/C/Ds.  So, it's quite plausible that a Mustang driver could have "saved the day" at Ramell...  Could it destroy a Tiger? Probably, provided that the pilot hit the top of the engine compartment, 6 .50 cals could do a damn-damn in that area...  However, I think  it'd only result in a mobility kill unless it started an engine fire...

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: Left forever
Posted by Bgrigg on Sunday, March 28, 2010 8:28 AM

Brian, only two quibbles...

Hold the line:

America was told, in no uncertain terms, to stay out of Europe before WWI, and after WWI, but oddly not DURING WWI, and then they were told "what took you so long?". A question they were asked during WWII.

I've heard this for most of my life. The Americans took that long as they had millions of soldiers to train, thousands of tanks, aircraft and ships to build, and two very large oceans to cross before they could attend. So the Europeans and Britain had to hold the line. It was, however, their line to hold. Had they been better at politics, perhaps Herr Fuhrer wouldn't have put on britches quite so large? Smile

The Blitz failed:

The reason the Blitz "failed" (I like to think it stopped), was Hitler decided to break his bond with Stalin and invade Russia. Something I'm sure he felt necessary, even though it was colossally stupid. Having a nasty like Stalin standing so close behind would have worried the hell out of me! The invasion of the USSR required the bulk of the Luftwaffe to move East and brought the Blitz to a complete end. Mind you the advent of radar controlled AA guns and detection stations also gave the British a new way to defend themselves. BTW, my uncle flew Hurricanes during the Battle of Britain, before transferring to the fledgling CRAF where he flew Spitfires providing bomber escort in Sicily and Italy, where my father was fighting. His view was the RAF was pretty darn lucky. The German pilots had to fly over the Channel before they could start fighting, and therefore started off with much less fuel, and were already beginning to tire from flying. The RAF was young, determined and brave, but most of all they were fresh!

Now I'm in perhaps a unique situation. I have a Blitz survivor living with me. My mother in law was bombed out of one home, and evacuated to Canada for the rest of the war. Her mother was bombed out of two more homes (those 'dumb V1 & V2 rockets), and survived until 1999. I've not just talked to survivors, I married into the family! Her recollection is that had Germany kept up the bombing, it would have broken the British. The simple fact is the respite from bombing gave the plucky Brits renewed resolve to keep the battle going.

I've often wondered what would have happened had the US maintained Army and Navy bases in Europe after WWI. They might have had a greater sense of impending doom, and perhaps wouldn't have been quite so unprepared in the Pacific and therefore stopped the Japanese from attacking in the first place.. It may have altered Hitler's plans to invade West, and he may have tried for Russia sooner.

So long folks!

  • Member since
    March 2006
Posted by simpilot34 on Sunday, March 28, 2010 5:29 AM

Well said Brian, I have to agree on both counts.

Cheers, Lt. Cmdr. Richie "To be prepared for war, is one of the most effectual means of preserving the peace."-George Washington
  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Louisville, KY.
Posted by Cosmic J on Sunday, March 28, 2010 12:23 AM

stikpusher

Yup, just like Kelly's Heroes did. But it is a  LOT beter than 40 years ago for most major war movies when all you got were M-47s and M48s painted gray with a German cross and a double baffle muzzle brake added sometimes.

 

My favorite is "The Big Red One", which features Israeli Ishermans w/ balkenkreuz painted on the front slope of the armor. It's just so... ironic.

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Goffstown, NH
Posted by New Hampshire on Saturday, March 27, 2010 5:54 PM

Bgrigg

As a Canadian, I have always been amused by the necessity of American movie makers to over emphasize American involvement. If you were to believe Hollywood, one would think the US won the war single handed. But I don't believe Hollywood, and I know full well that it took a huge amount of effort by ALL the Allies in order to win the war.

I can not emphasize how much I agree with this!  I will admit that, even though I have never come even close to visiting, I hold a sort of admiration for Australia (as evidenced my what I explain in my Carro Armato thread).  And to a not quite, but very close extent, I have held the British and her commmonwealth colonies in high regards.  Despite the speed bumps we had early in this countries history with the British and her commonwealths they have proven to be nothing but upstanding allies.  And in WW2 we look to more than just the English and her colonies, we also had the Czechs, Polish and displace free French who added their mark to the war.  I for one like to think I am not an egotistical American.  I will always give the British, Australians, Kiwis, Indians, Polish, Czecks (who get even more respect out of me for going on to fight besides the nation...Great Britain...who sold her out to the Nazis), Free French, Canadians, Russians (who, love or hate the fact, really did take a HUGE brunt of the war effort on her shoulders while the rest of the Allies got their acts together) and Phillipinos.  I can't remember where I read it, but in one book an author described the situation pretty well when he said, to paraphrase, that America used to fight her wars by remaining as close to non beligerance as possible without actually sending troops and relied on the other European nationalities to hold the line while they got their acts together.

I do know that England could not and would not have withstood another year of war without the Yanks, no matter how much they like to complain that the US soldier was "over paid, over sexed and over here".

This, however, I am not quite totally convinced of.  Let's face it, Hitlers ambitions for taking the British/Scottish/Welsh isles was half hearted at most.  He would have considered the Blitz a success if it brought nothing more than an agreement with the British to stay out of his greater Europe ambitions.  I think this is somewhat evident by the fact that after the failure of the Blitz the most he ever managed to do was send over a number of "dumb" terror weapons in the V1 and V2.  Now, I will grant you that Hitlers word was NEVER a solid bond...he proved often that hewould say anything (and sometimes mean it!) only to change his mind when it suited him.  But when the Blitz failed I think that really, as the British like to say, took the Mickey out of his greater ambitions for the island country.  I think that eventually, even if the US did not enter the war, the battle for the Atlantic would still have been won (albeit at a more protracted date), but the only sticking point being could the British have survived through a lack of food and other provisions (another thing I will grant the Brits....they sure do know how to take hardship prety well).  I think they could have.  But even still it would have come down to whether Hitler was still interested in taking the Isles, a prospect that I honestly don't think I could forsee having ever happened.

Brian

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: Left forever
Posted by Bgrigg on Saturday, March 27, 2010 5:20 PM

As a Canadian, I have always been amused by the necessity of American movie makers to over emphasize American involvement. If you were to believe Hollywood, one would think the US won the war single handed. But I don't believe Hollywood, and I know full well that it took a huge amount of effort by ALL the Allies in order to win the war. I also know that without massive US involvement, the world would be a radically different place than it is now. Whether we would be speaking German or Russian instead is a question I am glad to not know the answer to!

I do know that England could not and would not have withstood another year of war without the Yanks, no matter how much they like to complain that the US soldier was "over paid, over sexed and over here".

And I don't expect Americans to promote the other countries. They can make their own movies if they want that. At least the aircraft at the end wasn't Tom Cruise in an F-14!

So long folks!

  • Member since
    October 2008
  • From: New Jersey
Posted by oddmanrush on Saturday, March 27, 2010 5:04 PM

Bgrigg, I would agree with you about the P-51. There were many complaints about the movie neglecting to emphasize the assistance and the involvement of our allies in the Normandy invasion, which I think are irrelevant. However, if the movie is to cater to American audiences then it certainly would have obliged them to use an icon such as the Mustang. Upon seeing, say, a Typhoon emasculating a Tiger, unsavvy American audiences may have just shrugged their shoulders. You'd have to wonder if a grunt like Pvt. Ryan would have even known what a Typhoon was. Further, I'm sure the idea of British Typhoons coming to the rescue of embattled US troops wouldn't have been so flavorful or as dramatic as how they depict American soldiers releiving Ramelle under the cover of the glorious Mustang. Of course, this is all just speculation on my part...I'm still a firm believer that Capt. Miller disabled the Tiger with several well placed shots from his side arm.  

Jon

My Blog: The Combat Workshop 

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: Left forever
Posted by Bgrigg on Saturday, March 27, 2010 3:41 PM

Heh, heh, the real reason the battle of Ramelle was staged in England, was that the village of Ramelle is completely fictional, as are the characters in the movie.

I think the real reason a P-51 was used, is that it is the most recognizable American WWII fighter plane.

So long folks!

  • Member since
    October 2008
  • From: New Jersey
Posted by oddmanrush on Saturday, March 27, 2010 3:29 PM

I think we can all agree that the P-51 wasn't the optimum choice for such a role depicted in the film. I suppose in some ways we can't fault Spielburg and Co. for such things. The battle at Ramelle was staged some where in England.  That being said, I'm guessing it would have been simpler and much less expensive to use resources readlily available to them from England. At the time, perhaps there were no airworthy P-47's or other such 'tank busters' in the UK (that they would be willing to use). And I doubt if they would have spent the time and money flying or transporting P-47's from the States. We could then make the argument that they should have simply CG'ed the planes into the film, thereby making it more accurate. However, I could just hear the purists complaining that they used computer graphics rather than using the actual aircraft. Maybe its a no win situation.

I'd still like to know if 6 to 8 .50's would do any damage to German armor of the day. I've heard talk that P-47 pilots used to skip rounds off the road and into the less-armored under belly of tanks and thus destroy them. That came from the History channel.

Jon

My Blog: The Combat Workshop 

  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Saturday, March 27, 2010 12:41 PM

Hans von Hammer

But in reallity it would probably have been an A20 or a B26 Marauder out the busting tanks. Perhaps a Havoc with invasion stripes (I don't remember seeing them on the Mustangs by the way)

A-20s and B-26s aren't tankbusters in any sense of the word... Even though the A-20 had the Attack designator, it was used in the medium bomber roll in the ETO & MTO, same as the B-25 & B-26...   The A-20s had a major roll in attacking targets like bridges, railroad & troop marshalling areas, and airfields, but they didn't do any type of CAS missions like tank-plinking or hitting pillbox positions and such...

Invasion stripes were applied to all tactical aircraft types used during Overlord, or aircraft used in a tactical roll (C-47s, gliders, L-birds)...  Aircraft like the B-17, B-24, and Lancaster were strategic bombers, hence no stripes..  

I've read several times that the two hardest things on German armor were Hawker Typhoons and "A" series bombers (probably all medium bombers too). The vast majority of German armor that was knocked out was by aircraft. A group of Havocs or Invaders were often used as a wolf pack looking for targets of oppertunity just like they did with the P47 (what a work horse). Patton even went so far as to issue an order saying that his men were to by pass Panther Tanks and the likes and leave them for the bombers. Now with the Normandy invasion alone; the vast amount of German armor knocked out was from carpet bombing (what planes were used is a mute point). My point here is that you wouldn't use a P51D as a low level ground attack plane. You'd use a P51A or even a P40 or P47. The P51A had equale if not slightly better performance at very low levels that the "D" model. But the Typhoon would have been the weapon of choice in a tank busting role; not a Mustang.

gary

  • Member since
    June 2008
  • From: Iowa
Posted by Hans von Hammer on Friday, March 26, 2010 8:13 PM

But in reallity it would probably have been an A20 or a B26 Marauder out the busting tanks. Perhaps a Havoc with invasion stripes (I don't remember seeing them on the Mustangs by the way)

A-20s and B-26s aren't tankbusters in any sense of the word... Even though the A-20 had the Attack designator, it was used in the medium bomber roll in the ETO & MTO, same as the B-25 & B-26...   The A-20s had a major roll in attacking targets like bridges, railroad & troop marshalling areas, and airfields, but they didn't do any type of CAS missions like tank-plinking or hitting pillbox positions and such...

Invasion stripes were applied to all tactical aircraft types used during Overlord, or aircraft used in a tactical roll (C-47s, gliders, L-birds)...  Aircraft like the B-17, B-24, and Lancaster were strategic bombers, hence no stripes..  

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Friday, March 26, 2010 3:32 PM

Here are a few shots of Rangers at Pt DuHoc. In them you can see the large cargo packets on the pant leg in the hip area. In the middle photo if you look closely you will see a wounded British Commando who accompanied the Ranger Force and a 101st Paratrooper who landed at the base of the cliffs the during the night drop and joined the Ranger Assault.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Friday, March 26, 2010 3:09 PM

Gary, I will respectfully disagree on Darby's Rangers. Col. Darby was stateside at the time of the Normandy landings. He was not associated with that Ranger Force.Col Rudder commanded the Overlord Ranger Force of the 2nd and 5th Ranger Battalions. They wore the HBT fatigues with M41 filed jackets for the landings. The HBT fatigues had two large chest cargo pockets on the shirt and two large hip/thigh cargo pockets on the pants. The M41 Field Jackets were a Khaki Olive material with two slash pockets on the front. There are a few photos around on the net of the Ranger Force at Pt Du Hoc which I will try to find and post.

As far as invasion stripes go, they were applied to all Allied aircraft associated with the landings except for certain four engine types (B-17, B-24, Lancaster) Everything else that was to fly in the area of the beachheads had them applied.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    October 2008
  • From: New Jersey
Posted by oddmanrush on Friday, March 26, 2010 12:37 PM

bbrowniii

 

 

 

Well, we don't know that.  Perhaps the -51 had been carrying a rocket and used its last one on the Tiger....

Well, I would agree with you there, except for the lack of hard points to attach the ordnance. I mean, all of this is speculation, only a movie, hence some suspension of disbelief is in order. I mean, there is no sound in the vacuum of space but I still love Star Wars...Big Smile

Jon

My Blog: The Combat Workshop 

  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Friday, March 26, 2010 12:16 PM

stikpusher

Capt. Miller and Darby's Rangers. Now here we get in to some "rivet counting". Darby's Rangers were formed in 1942 in the UK, originally the 1st Ranger Battalion. 50 went ashore at Dieppe in August 1942 to get combat experience. After North Africa, the 3rd and later 4th Ranger Battalions were formed and added to the force. They were destroyed at Anzio early in the battle during late January and survivors transferred to the 1st Special Service Force. These Ranger units wore the black, white, and red Ranger scrolls like what is worn on todays Ranger Regiment soldiers (the scroll, not the tab from the school). 

Rudders Rangers, the 2nd and 5th Ranger Battalions, which would go ashore in Normandy were formed in the US and then sent to England as part of the force for Overlord. These Rangers originally wore the Blue and Gold diamond shaped Ranger patch and later adopted the scroll.

I have read of one Ranger officer in Rudder's Rangers that had previously served in Darby's but he was relieved before the invasion. These two battalions had seen no action prior to June 6 and would have had little to no need for replacements coming in to the unit prior to the landing. Except perhaps to replace men injured or killed in training accidents. So possible, yes, probable...? you decide.

As far as uniforms go, the researcher did a great job there. For Overlord, the Ranger Force wore impregnated (an anti gas treatment) HBT fatigues with M41 field jackets and assault vests. What the actors wore in the movie. Helmets were marked as shown with the standard NCO or officers white stripe on the rear of the helmet as an orange diamond with the number of the battalion on the diamond on the back of the helmet as well for all Rangers.

Tank Busters? I think that was due to what they had flyable for filming. P-47s would have been the best choice, but how many of those are still flying today? Plus I do believe that Spielberg has a "thing" for Mustangs. Just a hunch, but look at "Empire of the Sun". And if you watch the special features Disc with movies he made as kid with a home camera near a desert aircraft boneyard. In the ETO, the few US P-51As were recon photo birds. Most Allison engined US P-51s flew in the MTO or CBI.

Darby Ranger were the ones that scaled the cliffs. They wear a completely different uniform that regular Army did at the time. It closely resembles a Vietnam era jungle fatigue, but is grey in color. The shoulder patches they wore I don't really remember. There was no lower pockets on the pants as best I can remember. Somewhere I have a photo of what was said to be the last surviving Darby Ranger in uniform, so I'll have to start the hunt for it this  weekend. It's been years since I've seen it, but I know I didn't toss it.

as for the aircraft, I never felt that the P51D was the wise choice for the film. They were not as well suited for low level raids as the P51 / A36 were (as well as a P39/ Tempest were. But in reallity it would probably have been an A20 or a B26 Marauder out the busting tanks. Perhaps a Havoc with invasion stripes (I don't remember seeing them on the Mustangs by the way)

gary

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: 41 Degrees 52.4 minutes North; 72 Degrees 7.3 minutes West
Posted by bbrowniii on Friday, March 26, 2010 12:14 PM

oddmanrush

 in the movie the 51's aren't carrying rockets or bombs, especially if they had just been escorting bombers.

Well, we don't know that.  Perhaps the -51 had been carrying a rocket and used its last one on the Tiger....

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' - Edmund Burke (1770 ??)

 

  • Member since
    October 2008
  • From: New Jersey
Posted by oddmanrush on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:21 AM

I like the movie and thus I try not to pick it apart much. I was thinking, since you mentioned it, that though the P-51's primary mission was to escort bombers wouldn't it have been common place for the fighters to strafe targets of opportunity once the bombing mission had been completed? If that's the case, it could explain why several P-51's came to the rescue. This, however, would bring up another question. Can 6 .50 calibers do that much damage to a Tiger? The Tiger had (correct me if I'm wrong) 26 mm of armor on the turret top and engine deck. Could a .50 cal round penetrate that? Clearly rockets would have been the optimum choice, however, in the movie the 51's aren't carrying rockets or bombs, especially if they had just been escorting bombers.

......unless of course it was actually Capt. Miller's Colt 1911 that destroyed the Tiger and not the P-51's........

Jon

My Blog: The Combat Workshop 

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: 41 Degrees 52.4 minutes North; 72 Degrees 7.3 minutes West
Posted by bbrowniii on Friday, March 26, 2010 9:17 AM

Hans von Hammer

Biggest issue I had with authenticity was the German haircuts...

If that was your biggest issue, I'd say you were a pretty big fan of the movie.

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' - Edmund Burke (1770 ??)

 

  • Member since
    June 2008
  • From: Iowa
Posted by Hans von Hammer on Friday, March 26, 2010 8:12 AM

Biggest issue I had with authenticity was the German haircuts... The German Heer and Waffen-SS hair regs were quite strict, and the buzz-cuts shown on "Steamboat Willie" and the SS soldier were pretty unlikely...  Most German haircuts were a kind of loose "High & Tight" with long hair on the top and "whitewalls" on the sides... I actually wore a WW2 German hairstyle during my reenactment days and, since I was still on Active Duty, a source of (good-natured) friction between me & my Sergeant Major on several occasions, even though I was still within the scope of AR 670-1...   Had to give it up when we got those stupid berets though...

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Friday, March 26, 2010 12:58 AM

I agree on terminology. But as far as the role of the aircraft itself. Mustang was the hottest fighter in the USAAF in the ETO. They were tasked with the air superiority mission by the time of D-Day, the P-47 and P-38 had the dual fighter bomber role by then, but not the P-51. Not a big deal, save for the aero historian.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: 41 Degrees 52.4 minutes North; 72 Degrees 7.3 minutes West
Posted by bbrowniii on Thursday, March 25, 2010 5:00 PM

stikpusher

Tank Busters? I think that was due to what they had flyable for filming. P-47s would have been the best choice, but how many of those are still flying today? Plus I do believe that Spielberg has a "thing" for Mustangs. Just a hunch, but look at "Empire of the Sun". And if you watch the special features Disc with movies he made as kid with a home camera near a desert aircraft boneyard. In the ETO, the few US P-51As were recon photo birds. Most Allison engined US P-51s flew in the MTO or CBI.

I think you can also write that off as 'grunt talk'.  The the lowly infantryman, every tank was a tiger, everytime they got shelled, it was by 88's, and every plane that killed a tank was a tankbuster.  I just don't think it is that big of a deal.

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' - Edmund Burke (1770 ??)

 

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Thursday, March 25, 2010 1:30 PM

Capt. Miller and Darby's Rangers. Now here we get in to some "rivet counting". Darby's Rangers were formed in 1942 in the UK, originally the 1st Ranger Battalion. 50 went ashore at Dieppe in August 1942 to get combat experience. After North Africa, the 3rd and later 4th Ranger Battalions were formed and added to the force. They were destroyed at Anzio early in the battle during late January and survivors transferred to the 1st Special Service Force. These Ranger units wore the black, white, and red Ranger scrolls like what is worn on todays Ranger Regiment soldiers (the scroll, not the tab from the school). 

Rudders Rangers, the 2nd and 5th Ranger Battalions, which would go ashore in Normandy were formed in the US and then sent to England as part of the force for Overlord. These Rangers originally wore the Blue and Gold diamond shaped Ranger patch and later adopted the scroll.

I have read of one Ranger officer in Rudder's Rangers that had previously served in Darby's but he was relieved before the invasion. These two battalions had seen no action prior to June 6 and would have had little to no need for replacements coming in to the unit prior to the landing. Except perhaps to replace men injured or killed in training accidents. So possible, yes, probable...? you decide.

As far as uniforms go, the researcher did a great job there. For Overlord, the Ranger Force wore impregnated (an anti gas treatment) HBT fatigues with M41 field jackets and assault vests. What the actors wore in the movie. Helmets were marked as shown with the standard NCO or officers white stripe on the rear of the helmet as an orange diamond with the number of the battalion on the diamond on the back of the helmet as well for all Rangers.

Tank Busters? I think that was due to what they had flyable for filming. P-47s would have been the best choice, but how many of those are still flying today? Plus I do believe that Spielberg has a "thing" for Mustangs. Just a hunch, but look at "Empire of the Sun". And if you watch the special features Disc with movies he made as kid with a home camera near a desert aircraft boneyard. In the ETO, the few US P-51As were recon photo birds. Most Allison engined US P-51s flew in the MTO or CBI.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Thursday, March 25, 2010 12:37 PM

NEXT:

* Capt. Miller is a Darby Ranger. Their uniforms are completely wrong

* has anyone noticed the complete absense of Browning 30 caliber machine guns with the shoulder stock? This was a weapon widely used by airborne units

* P51D's are tank busters? I think that the term was applied to Typhoons and medium bombers (A20, B26, and Invaders). The P51d was used as an air superiority fighter. Perhaps a P51A?

gary

  • Member since
    June 2008
  • From: Iowa
Posted by Hans von Hammer on Thursday, March 25, 2010 9:01 AM

Hans, you are truly a man after my own heart.  I have a box full of GI Combat (The Haunted Tank), Sgt Rock, and Weird War comics.  I also have the first 12 (only 12 for that matter) of the Blitzkrieg comic from the German perspective.  Ah Nostalgia!

Well, I didn't pick m' screen name because I thought "Hans" sounded good, lol...  I too spent many hours in my "fort" with "The Combat Happy Joes of Easy Co.", "Jeb Stewart" and Rick, Slim , & Arch, and the rest, like "Enemy Ace", "Lt Steve Savage", and "Johnny Cloud"...

  • Member since
    September 2009
  • From: Spring Branch, TX
Posted by satch_ip on Thursday, March 25, 2010 8:15 AM

Hans von Hammer

That was sarcasm about the moonlanding... Hence the little "devil" emoticon..

I was only talking about fuze arming, but since you brought up the primer issue, Brownie, is it possible that the primers were recessed far enough inside that there wouldn't be any actual strike on the primer?

 

...it was actually Miller, firing a .45 cal round that went down the tube of the main gun on the Tiger and detonated the round there,...

 

That guy read too many "Haunted Tank" comics... Rick (Jeb's gunner) could put a 37mm down the Tiger's tube, but would wait until the loader had the breech open in order for the 37mm round to go down the tube and detonate inside the turret...

Anyhow, the 88's fuze wouldn't be armed, hence a bullet-strike wouldn't set the round off..

Hans, you are truly a man after my own heart.  I have a box full of GI Combat (The Haunted Tank), Sgt Rock, and Weird War comics.  I also have the first 12 (only 12 for that matter) of the Blitzkrieg comic from the German perspective.  Ah Nostalgia!

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: 41 Degrees 52.4 minutes North; 72 Degrees 7.3 minutes West
Posted by bbrowniii on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 9:08 PM

Aaronw

Don't mortars have a variable charge to adjust range? If so shouldn't it be possible to remove the propellant completely? (assuming you can trick the fuse with the smack on the tail bit).

I kind of addressed this, but to review:  yes, mortars do have removable propellant charges (called increments).  However, even a round fired with charge zero (all increments removed) will travel quite a distance - I don't have firing tables in front of me, but it would be a couple hundred meters for a 60 (I assume).  And, yes, the arming and the firing (at least on modern rounds) are seperate, but that smacking part initiates the firing sequence (and perhaps on WWII rounds the arming as well).

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' - Edmund Burke (1770 ??)

 

  • Member since
    September 2015
  • From: The Redwood Empire
Posted by Aaronw on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 9:04 PM

Some of you are assuming that arming the fuse and firing the propellant go hand in hand. At least on the PIAT this is not the case, the firing pin goes well into a cavity on the round (the PIAT is really more like a rifle grenade in a bazooka looking launcher) so it is not easy to trigger the propellant, but giving it a solid smackdown on the tail will trip the fuse.

Don't mortars have a variable charge to adjust range? If so shouldn't it be possible to remove the propellant completely? (assuming you can trick the fuse with the smack on the tail bit).

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: 41 Degrees 52.4 minutes North; 72 Degrees 7.3 minutes West
Posted by bbrowniii on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 9:04 PM

Hans von Hammer

That was sarcasm about the moonlanding... Hence the little "devil" emoticon..

I was only talking about fuze arming, but since you brought up the primer issue, Brownie, is it possible that the primers were recessed far enough inside that there wouldn't be any actual strike on the primer?

Nope.  The primer is flush with the base of the tail.  Smack that puppy on the ground or a rock and you are dropping it directly on the primer.  HOWEVER, on an 81mm mortar round, when the primer goes off, it drives the floating firing pin into the ignition charge, which in term ignites the increments.  The ignition charge is located further up the tail assembly (by a couple of inches), BUT that is on the 81.  I think the ignition charge on the 60mm mortar rounds (because they are significantly shorter than the 81) are  located directly above the primer....

 

Hans von Hammer

...it was actually Miller, firing a .45 cal round that went down the tube of the main gun on the Tiger and detonated the round there,...

That guy read too many "Haunted Tank" comics... Rick (Jeb's gunner) could put a 37mm down the Tiger's tube, but would wait until the loader had the breech open in order for the 37mm round to go down the tube and detonate inside the turret...

Anyhow, the 88's fuze wouldn't be armed, hence a bullet-strike wouldn't set the round off..

Yup....  I just found that perspective a little.... moronic...  I mean, did the guy actually WATCH the movie, for cryin' out loud?

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' - Edmund Burke (1770 ??)

 

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Goffstown, NH
Posted by New Hampshire on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 8:48 PM

Killjoy

Wow, are we REALLY going to go there?  This thread will either hit 100 pages or get locked!

Chris

P.S. We did land on the moon.  Just saying......

As Hans said twas a joke.  My tounge was firmly planted in cheek with that statement. Wink

Brian

  • Member since
    June 2008
  • From: Iowa
Posted by Hans von Hammer on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 7:54 PM

That was sarcasm about the moonlanding... Hence the little "devil" emoticon..

I was only talking about fuze arming, but since you brought up the primer issue, Brownie, is it possible that the primers were recessed far enough inside that there wouldn't be any actual strike on the primer?

...it was actually Miller, firing a .45 cal round that went down the tube of the main gun on the Tiger and detonated the round there,...

That guy read too many "Haunted Tank" comics... Rick (Jeb's gunner) could put a 37mm down the Tiger's tube, but would wait until the loader had the breech open in order for the 37mm round to go down the tube and detonate inside the turret...

Anyhow, the 88's fuze wouldn't be armed, hence a bullet-strike wouldn't set the round off..

  • Member since
    March 2008
  • From: Steilacoom, Washington
Posted by Killjoy on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 7:41 PM

Wow, are we REALLY going to go there?  This thread will either hit 100 pages or get locked!

Chris

P.S. We did land on the moon.  Just saying......

A veteran is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America," for an amount of "up to and including my life."

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Goffstown, NH
Posted by New Hampshire on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 7:32 PM

bbrowniii

By the way, speaking of SPR, I saw a thread on another forum where someone was claiming that, in the final scene, where Miller is shot up at the end of the bridge and the Tiger is coming towards him and he is plinking away at it with his .45, that it was actually Miller, firing a .45 cal round that went down the tube of the main gun on the Tiger and detonated the round there, that destroyed the tank and not the fighter that flew overhead a second later...Confused

Hey, in Hollywierd ANYTHING is possible!  I mean, look at the moon landings.  They made them so real people actually think we went to the moon when all along it was done on a sound stage! Devil

Brian

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 6:36 PM

That guy probably thinks "Steamboat Willie" is the one who knifes Fisch also...No

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: Left forever
Posted by Bgrigg on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 6:33 PM

Sounds like a job for

So long folks!

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: 41 Degrees 52.4 minutes North; 72 Degrees 7.3 minutes West
Posted by bbrowniii on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 6:25 PM

Interesting page but it didn't answer the ultimate question about how those rounds are armed.  Still, based on the information I currently have available, I'm going to move this myth from the 'Busted' pile into the 'Plausible'....Geeked

By the way, speaking of SPR, I saw a thread on another forum where someone was claiming that, in the final scene, where Miller is shot up at the end of the bridge and the Tiger is coming towards him and he is plinking away at it with his .45, that it was actually Miller, firing a .45 cal round that went down the tube of the main gun on the Tiger and detonated the round there, that destroyed the tank and not the fighter that flew overhead a second later...Confused

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' - Edmund Burke (1770 ??)

 

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 3:37 PM

I just found this link to a table of comparison from an Army.mil webpage about comparison of old (presume WW2) and new (current) 60mm mortar rounds. look about 1/4 down the page. I could not get the images to transfer.

 

https://rdl.train.army.mil/soldierPortal/atia/adlsc/view/public/10575-1/ACCP/MM25987/lsn.htm#chart

 

 

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 3:21 PM

I am right with you there. I am curious as to how plausible it is. Sounds like a great one for Mythbusters to examine. I can pretty much buy the banging to arm the fuse as long as the round is gripped midsection. Like a bang stick or zip gun it will let your hand know its there, but in that tight of combat bruising is low on priorties. Liek you said, "throw another one!" I can't find anything online to specificly say how they were armed. Much of what has been mentioned here are all modern (Vietnam and later) rounds and fuses. Obviously the launch method has not changed at all since first invented (a perfect example of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" ). Fusing I suspect were much simpler, timer or impact. VT was not allowed to be used in anything but AAA until the Battle of the Bulge due to its' secrecy. Only then was it released to FA as a nasty surprise to the Germans. I will say that i am learning for more about mortars here than I knew before. All I knew was call for fire...Stick out tongue You called, they delivered.

Here are the four types of 60mm rounds in service:training, HE, WP-Smoke, and Illum. Nice and simple.

File:60mm-Mortar-Rounds.jpg

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: 41 Degrees 52.4 minutes North; 72 Degrees 7.3 minutes West
Posted by bbrowniii on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 3:00 PM

Stik,

Mayyyyyybe... but I'm still skeptical.  Granted, I've never been in a situation where I needed (or was inclinded) to try it, but there is still the issue of, in effect replacing the mortar tube with your hand and holding the round after the igniting and booster charges are fired...  seems a bit unlikely to me.  I mean, look at the size of the charge (I know it is an 81, but the 60 is not much smaller - definately larger, or about the same as the 12-gauge shell), on the site you linked to...  A lot of pressure is being released.  That is going to have some ooomph.  Granted, much of it will dissipate due to the absence of the tube, but...

Then there is the issue of throwing the round hard enough and far enough for the round to spin enough to arm the fuse (assuming as I am that WWII rounds armed through rotation as do modern rounds).

The fact of it is, when I see the scene in the movie, part of my mind says, "Hmmm, not so fast", but another part of my mind says, "Yeah, throw another one at those Kraut bastards!"

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' - Edmund Burke (1770 ??)

 

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:36 PM

Here is a link to a list of current 60mm mortar rounds and fuses. At least since the 1980s when the 60mm came back in to US Army service

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/mortar/60mm.html

Now looking at the diagram of the round if one holds the forward portion of the round and not the tail assembly, it looks like the propellant gasses bbIII talks about would miss the hands... kind of like during the firing of  a revolver.

 

below are typical WW2 60mm US mortar rounds

and some info on WWII era rounds

http://www.inert-ord.net/usa03a/usa5/6081/60mm.html

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 12:10 PM

Hans von Hammer

Not all motars are spin-armed, some fuzes are armed by "Set-Back", meaning that the prop charge exploding and subsequent rapid acceleration (G-force) is what arms it.. Whacking the round's tail on the firing plate to arm it is quite plausable ... I don't how hard you have to hit it though, but I'd imagine it's a pretty good shock, more than can be generated by dropping it... I know that on some arty set-back fuzes, it takes a minimum of 25 Gs to arm it..  Some are dual or triple-arming, meaning they can be armed by set-back, spin, or time, or combinations thereof. 

VT (Variable Time) fuzes are time fuzes, but they aren't mechanical time fuzes... VT fuzes have a small radio transceiver in them that acts like a radar.. It detonates when the signal it sends out bounces off an object and back to it's receiver... The time is set  for safety (to prevent premature functioning), back-up functioning,  and for self-destruct if the transceiver fails...   In WW2, the VT fuze was a top-secret US weapon that was designed for AAA gun rounds and tube artillery, never had any VT-fuzed mortars...

I think your refering to the M119 (I think that's the right number). It does have a time setting dial on the botton of the fuse that's use to clear anything along it's path before going off 20 meters above ground. The housing is an O.D. plastic with the ring being anodized black. Expensive little boggers as well, and not well liked by the crews. Didn't work anybetter than a plain jane 565 or a 564. Mortars used time fuses mostly for illumination rounds, and once in a great while they'd do aerial burst WP.

gary

  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 12:00 PM

richs26

 44Mac:
Been awhile since I seen it but the ability to talk is rule number one otherwise you could catch those 14's. After all, they are aitrborne rangers. There is also a VT (Variable time) fuze that goes a preset time after the "smack". The first service to adopt the M16 as the AR15 was the USAF. Had a few in my Armory at one time that had that stamp on the receiver. Used to have a bunch of 20 rd mags with that stamp untill an officer who has no name saw them. Sqeakie, you remember the comic book PM to teach you to clean it?
                                                          Cheers, Mac

 

The Air Force bought the M-16 after Eugene Stoner showed the AR-15 to Gen Curtis LeMay at a dinner party, and they were shooting at watermelons.  Gen LeMay saw that it would be perfect for USAF SP's (the actual "rivet counters" guarding the B-52's and KC's on alert duty.  The original AF purchase M-16's didn'thave forward assist levers and the lower receivers were marked AR-15.  When I qualified with the M-16 at Lackland for AF basic in '87, we used original M-16's with no forward assist.  As of 2007, my old CE squadron at Eielson AFB had at least three M-16's with lower receivers serial numbered at 11,xxx with no letter prefix meaning they wre part of the original AF purchase.  They had new upper receivers with forward assist, new barrels, and the burst control which was engraved with an engraving tool on the selector switch as burst instead of auto.

forward assist showed up sometime in mid 1968. I never had a forward assist gun, but the newbies had them. What is really interesting was the short barreled version of the CAR15 never had the forward assist as well, and with that ten inch barrel it really needed it

gary

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: 41 Degrees 52.4 minutes North; 72 Degrees 7.3 minutes West
Posted by bbrowniii on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 9:04 AM

Hans von Hammer

Not all motars are spin-armed, some fuzes are armed by "Set-Back", meaning that the prop charge exploding and subsequent rapid acceleration (G-force) is what arms it.. Whacking the round's tail on the firing plate to arm it is quite plausable ... I don't how hard you have to hit it though, but I'd imagine it's a pretty good shock, more than can be generated by dropping it...

Again, the problem is, you are ignoring the 'consequence' of whacking that mortar round on the tail.  When you fire a mortar, you drop the round down the tube.  The weight of the round dropping onto the firing pin fires the shell in the tail, which propels the round out of the tube.  So, if they are replicating that without the tube, as they are in SPR, what they are going to get is the same result - a round being fired, except that instead of it being enclosed (and directed) by the tube, it is being held in a hand.  Granted, one result of that is that much of the force that would have been channeled upward by the tube will be dissipated.  But there is still going to be a heck of a lot of force being released.  As I said, even mortar rounds fired with a charge of zero (no additional propellant bags, just the force of the propellant in the tail) will travel quite a distance - I don't have my firing tables in front of me, so I can't give you exact ranges.  But that doesn't matter - what matters is, when you whack that round on the ground, tail first, the primer will ignite, driving the firing pin (technically a 'floating firing pin') into the ignition charge, which will flash out the holes on the shaft of the round (that is how the increments - the propellant charges - are ignited).  The ignition charge also expels force back down the shaft tail of the round, 'firing it' (agian - the zero increment situation I mentioned).  So, our heros are replacing a 1/2" metal tube with their hands, and 'firing' a mortar round....

Here, I'll give you a way to simulate - go grab a shotgun shell, lets say 20-gauge, for arguments sake.  Now hold it in your had and smack the primer against something hard until it goes off.  Now, come back and report on how your hand feels.

Hans, you are correct about VT fuses - I was describing Mechanical Time (MT) fuses and in my haste, used the wrong nomenclature...

By the way, on the issue of fuses (and not to go all 0341 on you - that's the Marine Corps MOS designation for mortarman, by the way), but there are four basic types of fuses (five if you count dummy, but that is irrelevant to this discussion):

Point Detonating (PD) - rounds fused this way are called 'superquick' in that they will detonate when the fuze impacts on a hard surface

Proximity (VT) - as Hans said, these emit radio waves out the nose of the projectile and, depending on the setting on the fuse, detonates when the radio waves reach a certain 'intensity'

Mechanical Time (MT) - these fuzes work with a clockwork mechanism that delays their detonation to a specific time after firing - most commonly found on illumination rounds to set the height of the burst and effect the expanse of the illumination

Multioption (MO) - these have three settings: proximity, impact (aka superquick), and delay (round will penetrate to a certain depth, depending on how hard the surface is, before detonating)

If we are taking SPR as 'accurate', I'd guess they were using PD fuses...  I've still got issues with the firing thing, though....

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' - Edmund Burke (1770 ??)

 

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: 41 Degrees 52.4 minutes North; 72 Degrees 7.3 minutes West
Posted by bbrowniii on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 8:38 AM

squeakie

     Onto the mortars rounds again. U.S. mortar tubes are rifled

Actually, they are not rifled.  The 81-mm (the M252) and the 60-mm (the M224) mortars are smooth bore weapons. 

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' - Edmund Burke (1770 ??)

 

  • Member since
    June 2008
  • From: Iowa
Posted by Hans von Hammer on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 7:59 AM

Not all motars are spin-armed, some fuzes are armed by "Set-Back", meaning that the prop charge exploding and subsequent rapid acceleration (G-force) is what arms it.. Whacking the round's tail on the firing plate to arm it is quite plausable ... I don't how hard you have to hit it though, but I'd imagine it's a pretty good shock, more than can be generated by dropping it... I know that on some arty set-back fuzes, it takes a minimum of 25 Gs to arm it..  Some are dual or triple-arming, meaning they can be armed by set-back, spin, or time, or combinations thereof. 

VT (Variable Time) fuzes are time fuzes, but they aren't mechanical time fuzes... VT fuzes have a small radio transceiver in them that acts like a radar.. It detonates when the signal it sends out bounces off an object and back to it's receiver... The time is set  for safety (to prevent premature functioning), back-up functioning,  and for self-destruct if the transceiver fails...   In WW2, the VT fuze was a top-secret US weapon that was designed for AAA gun rounds and tube artillery, never had any VT-fuzed mortars...

  • Member since
    September 2015
  • From: The Redwood Empire
Posted by Aaronw on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:48 PM

I don't know about US mortars but the British PIAT could have its rounds armed by wacking the tail down on a hard surface. The Para's in Arnhem lost many of their PIATs but were able to use the rounds as big grenades. I think they did show this in A Bridge to far so it is possible the SPR people saw this and thought it was cool, or maybe the US 60mm could also do this.

The Japanese 50mm mortar rounds could be fused for use as hand grenades which could be another source for the idea. 

  • Member since
    September 2005
  • From: North Pole, Alaska
Posted by richs26 on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:31 PM

44Mac
Been awhile since I seen it but the ability to talk is rule number one otherwise you could catch those 14's. After all, they are aitrborne rangers. There is also a VT (Variable time) fuze that goes a preset time after the "smack". The first service to adopt the M16 as the AR15 was the USAF. Had a few in my Armory at one time that had that stamp on the receiver. Used to have a bunch of 20 rd mags with that stamp untill an officer who has no name saw them. Sqeakie, you remember the comic book PM to teach you to clean it?
                                                          Cheers, Mac

The Air Force bought the M-16 after Eugene Stoner showed the AR-15 to Gen Curtis LeMay at a dinner party, and they were shooting at watermelons.  Gen LeMay saw that it would be perfect for USAF SP's (the actual "rivet counters" guarding the B-52's and KC's on alert duty.  The original AF purchase M-16's didn'thave forward assist levers and the lower receivers were marked AR-15.  When I qualified with the M-16 at Lackland for AF basic in '87, we used original M-16's with no forward assist.  As of 2007, my old CE squadron at Eielson AFB had at least three M-16's with lower receivers serial numbered at 11,xxx with no letter prefix meaning they wre part of the original AF purchase.  They had new upper receivers with forward assist, new barrels, and the burst control which was engraved with an engraving tool on the selector switch as burst instead of auto.

WIP:  Monogram 1/72 B-26 (Snaptite) as 73rd BS B-26, 40-1408, torpedo bomber attempt on Ryujo

Monogram 1/72 B-26 (Snaptite) as 22nd BG B-26, 7-Mile Drome, New Guinea

Minicraft 1/72 B-24D as LB-30, AL-613, "Tough Boy", 28th Composite Group

  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 9:43 PM

44Mac
Been awhile since I seen it but the ability to talk is rule number one otherwise you could catch those 14's. After all, they are aitrborne rangers. There is also a VT (Variable time) fuze that goes a preset time after the "smack". The first service to adopt the M16 as the AR15 was the USAF. Had a few in my Armory at one time that had that stamp on the receiver. Used to have a bunch of 20 rd mags with that stamp untill an officer who has no name saw them. Sqeakie, you remember the comic book PM to teach you to clean it?
                                                          Cheers, Mac

when I was in basic training they had everybody goto a class on the new black rifle, and spend a couple days at the range with one (that is if you had a Combat At Arms MOS). We never cleaned them! But they did teach us how to break one down all the way for cleaning. When I went to AIT, everybody that got orders for the combat zone had to goto the class again. This time we all cleaned the rifles in a class. Stateside the only guys I saw with the M16 were the one brigade left behind at Campbell. Everybody there carried one. What was funny was that I qualified at about 3/4" with one that must have been shot ten thousand times. Then when I went overseas they gave me an AR15 that was on the recall list! The thing shot so fast that it sounded like buzz saw! We went to a range and zeroed them in (I was still in the replacement depot). Then the last night I was in the replacement depot we went to the same range again for a night shoot. We were the ones that got ambushed on the way back (nobody got hurt, but our egos and shorts sure took a beating!). When we left Charger Academy (that's the correct name) and got down to Gator they gave me 21 twenty round magazines. Back to the comic book; I have one! It came with my Bushmaster.

     Onto the mortars rounds again. U.S. mortar tubes are rifled (he was using a 60mm), but not sure about WWII stuff. But I do know that a normal PD fuse has to be centrifically activated. (clockwise by the way)

gary

  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 9:43 PM

44Mac
Been awhile since I seen it but the ability to talk is rule number one otherwise you could catch those 14's. After all, they are aitrborne rangers. There is also a VT (Variable time) fuze that goes a preset time after the "smack". The first service to adopt the M16 as the AR15 was the USAF. Had a few in my Armory at one time that had that stamp on the receiver. Used to have a bunch of 20 rd mags with that stamp untill an officer who has no name saw them. Sqeakie, you remember the comic book PM to teach you to clean it?
                                                          Cheers, Mac

when I was in basic training they had everybody goto a class on the new black rifle, and spend a couple days at the range with one (that is if you had a Combat At Arms MOS). We never cleaned them! But they did teach us how to break one down all the way for cleaning. When I went to AIT, everybody that got orders for the combat zone had to goto the class again. This time we all cleaned the rifles in a class. Stateside the only guys I saw with the M16 were the one brigade left behind at Campbell. Everybody there carried one. What was funny was that I qualified at about 3/4" with one that must have been shot ten thousand times. Then when I went overseas they gave me an AR15 that was on the recall list! The thing shot so fast that it sounded like buzz saw! We went to a range and zeroed them in (I was still in the replacement depot). Then the last night I was in the replacement depot we went to the same range again for a night shoot. We were the ones that got ambushed on the way back (nobody got hurt, but our egos and shorts sure took a beating!). When we left Charger Academy (that's the correct name) and got down to Gator they gave me 21 twenty round magazines. Back to the comic book; I have one! It came with my Bushmaster.

     Onto the mortars rounds again. U.S. mortar tubes are rifled (he was using a 60mm), but not sure about WWII stuff. But I do know that a normal PD fuse has to be centrifically activated. (clockwise by the way)

gary

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: 41 Degrees 52.4 minutes North; 72 Degrees 7.3 minutes West
Posted by bbrowniii on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 6:06 PM

44Mac
 There is also a VT (Variable time) fuze that goes a preset time after the "smack".

Yeah, but VT is usually something you are going to use for an airburst, and the time setting is going to be so long that they'd never keep it in the air that long (or they'd have to throw it where they thought the Germans would be in 45 seconds...)

Also, as I said, the ultimate problem is that initial 'smack'...

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' - Edmund Burke (1770 ??)

 

  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Österreich
Posted by 44Mac on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 4:43 PM
Been awhile since I seen it but the ability to talk is rule number one otherwise you could catch those 14's. After all, they are aitrborne rangers. There is also a VT (Variable time) fuze that goes a preset time after the "smack". The first service to adopt the M16 as the AR15 was the USAF. Had a few in my Armory at one time that had that stamp on the receiver. Used to have a bunch of 20 rd mags with that stamp untill an officer who has no name saw them. Sqeakie, you remember the comic book PM to teach you to clean it?
                                                          Cheers, Mac

Strike the tents...

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: 41 Degrees 52.4 minutes North; 72 Degrees 7.3 minutes West
Posted by bbrowniii on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 3:30 PM

Hmmmm....  I've been thinking about that.

Modern fuses have a proximity and a point detonating setting (basically - there are a few variants, like the newer 'Multi-option fuses', but for the sake of this discussion, we'll ignore those).  Most rounds have a 'bursting charge' that is ignited by the booster in the fuse on impact.  So, the issue isn't so much the 'range', because arguably you can fire a mortar straight up, and the round will detonate even though it only 'travels' a few meters.  The issue is getting the round high enough for the impact to trigger the fuse and thus, set off the bursting charge (which detonates the round).

The real question is, how was the smacking on the rock supposed to work - basically what is inside the fin end of the mortar round is a shotgun shell which ignites and, along with propellant charges on the side of the round, give the round its 'ooomph'...  if they were being completely realistic, smacking the round on the rock, triggering the shotgun round should have resulted in the rounds ripping out of their hands (even with no propellant charges, the round will stil travel quite a ways), but since there was no tube to direct them, the rounds, along with the fingers of the guys who held it and smacked it on the rock, would have gone all over the place...

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' - Edmund Burke (1770 ??)

 

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 3:06 PM

Any 18Bs or 11Cs around? In the film they bang the round against a hard surface to replicate the firing and supposedly activate the fuse. Is that possible? I only know mortars from watching them fire and watching them impact. And the sound of them going overhead.... Are mortars rifled and the spins activate the fuse, or smoothe bored and does time after launch or launch itself activate the fuse for impact?

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: 41 Degrees 52.4 minutes North; 72 Degrees 7.3 minutes West
Posted by bbrowniii on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 3:03 PM

44Mac

I was thinking the Texas and 14". I just guesed somebody had a radio and they had comm. But then just because you have a radio does not mean you have comm...

                                                                           Cheers, Mac

If you recall, when Capt Miller and the boys arrive at the Para's pos, and Miller and the para Platoon Sergeant are talking about their tactical situation, he (the para) makes the point that they have been out of contact since they landed... 

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' - Edmund Burke (1770 ??)

 

  • Member since
    March 2008
  • From: Steilacoom, Washington
Posted by Killjoy on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 2:05 PM

squeakie

    Now back to Pvt. Ryan. How does one make a mortar round explode without activating the fuse? All fuses used by the U.S. activate via centrifical force

gary

I have always been curious about that too, but realize that most movies take liberties when the plot needs it.

A veteran is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America," for an amount of "up to and including my life."

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: Left forever
Posted by Bgrigg on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 1:48 PM

I believe Hollywood explosive experts use an item called a squib...

Oh wait, you were asking about real life, weren't you? Whistling

So long folks!

  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 1:09 PM

44Mac

.222 Rem Mag is the civilian version of the .224 Springfield wich was also a candidate with the .223 Rem. The .223 is a .222 with a longer case and shorter neck. The .223 ended the career of the military .224 and the civilian .222 Mag. The .223 became the M193 Ball round with a 55 grain bullet. When we began replacing our M16A1s with A2s they used the M855 Ball wich had a steel cored 62 grain bullet and as the A2 had a 1 in 7 twist for the 855 and the A1 a 1 in 12 twist for the 193 we wern't allowed to interchange weapons and ammo. As for church bell towers they were usually the first thing to go in any town the allies came to starting with Vierville sur Mer and the USS Harding. That brings up another question. If the town was so important where was the naval gunfire support? 

                                                                                   Cheers, Mac

The .222 case family was Mike Waker's brain child, and it predates the M16 by over ten years. The next round after the .222 was the .222 magnum (note the same neck & taper). Next came the .223 and the .221 Fireball with different necks and similar tapers. The first AR15's were actually chambered in .222 Remington, and then .223 for the production run. The title of M16 didn't come around till the Army adopted them for good (a lot of military M16's were actually labled AR15's [I was issued one]) The first AR15/M16's were chambered in .223 with a 1:13 twist barrel. Had the short buffer and light weight spring. No chrome inside. Later they went with a heavy buffer and the light spring, and a few weeks later a heavy spring with the heavy buffer. A couple months later they came out with the chrome lined barrel, bolt carrier, and firing pin (I was caught up in that evolution. And finally the did away with the three pronged flash supressor and went with the bird cage. The .222 Remington was the first true target round after the 38-55, and was the bench rest king for years.

    Now back to Pvt. Ryan. How does one make a mortar round explode without activating the fuse? All fuses used by the U.S. activate via centrifical force

gary

  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Österreich
Posted by 44Mac on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 1:04 PM

I was thinking the Texas and 14". I just guesed somebody had a radio and they had comm. But then just because you have a radio does not mean you have comm...

                                                                           Cheers, Mac

Strike the tents...

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: 41 Degrees 52.4 minutes North; 72 Degrees 7.3 minutes West
Posted by bbrowniii on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 12:42 PM

44Mac

That brings up another question. If the town was so important where was the naval gunfire support? 

                                                                                   Cheers, Mac

Well, there are probably a lot of reasons, but the most significant: Lack of COMM...  Can't just go winging 5", 8" and bigger shells all willy-nilly without someone to tell you what to shoot at...

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' - Edmund Burke (1770 ??)

 

  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Österreich
Posted by 44Mac on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 11:35 AM

.222 Rem Mag is the civilian version of the .224 Springfield wich was also a candidate with the .223 Rem. The .223 is a .222 with a longer case and shorter neck. The .223 ended the career of the military .224 and the civilian .222 Mag. The .223 became the M193 Ball round with a 55 grain bullet. When we began replacing our M16A1s with A2s they used the M855 Ball wich had a steel cored 62 grain bullet and as the A2 had a 1 in 7 twist for the 855 and the A1 a 1 in 12 twist for the 193 we wern't allowed to interchange weapons and ammo. As for church bell towers they were usually the first thing to go in any town the allies came to starting with Vierville sur Mer and the USS Harding. That brings up another question. If the town was so important where was the naval gunfire support? 

                                                                                   Cheers, Mac

Strike the tents...

  • Member since
    April 2008
  • From: Kristiansund, Norway
Posted by Huxy on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:35 AM

What I find funny is that you all complain about that sniper, and not the fact that one actually took out the driver by spraying with the Thompson trough the slit....

Panzerglass, as it is called, is a very thick, highly bulletproof piece of glas that was on every visionslit of German vehicles. If it now did get shattered, it can be swaped by a new piece in less than 5 seconds.

Also, the infantry would never get that close to the tank in the first place. The German infantry would mow them down, or the tank would. The hull MG seems to just "be there" for the looks in Hollywood movies. You also have the co-axial MG on the turret. Plus the holes here and there for the crew to use their MP40's trough.

HVH: You are very true. Few knows about the combat lock, and it sure existed! Very helpful piece of engineering.

 

And for those who don't know, the Tiger tanks in SPR aren't built on a T-34 chassis. They are built around a T-34/85....

And all Waffen SS being war criminals? Heh.. right...

 

SPR is a movie, true. Not everything can be true to reality. Granted...  But SPR isn't really a good movie neither. Studying film,  and hopefully one day make some myself, I don't really like SPR. It's just another movie, and there is nothing spectacular about it. Just the openingscene was spectacular, IMO. SPR, in my eyes, is just another movie..

 

-Lasse Wink

"Every War Starts And Ends With An Invasion".

  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Piscataway, NJ!
Posted by wing_nut on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 9:47 AM

 To the location of a sniper, I recall an episode of "Combat"... wish that would come back on...the Germans had snipers in the tress that were picking off the GI's pretty much at will.  A new guy in Saunder's platoon was a tree expert before the war and noticed there where clumps of branches/leaves that were a different species in some of the trees.  They would shoot into these areas and a sniper would fall to the ground and the Americans were able to advance.  I read somewhere that this was based on a true incident, but who knows.

Marc  

  • Member since
    June 2008
  • From: Iowa
Posted by Hans von Hammer on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 12:23 AM

If you guys had ever read "Our Army at War" comic books starring Sgt. Rock, you'd know that all it takes is one guy with a Thompson to take out any armored vehicle, combat locked or not,   JEESH!!

Yeah, and th' 37mm on "The Haunted Tank" can knock out a Tiger...

  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Spartanburg, SC
Posted by subfixer on Monday, March 22, 2010 11:57 PM

Hans von Hammer

Couple of things... One, Ryan was out of ammo, had dozens of bullets whacking into the wall he was using as cover and was totaly and completely pinned down...   About the only thing he had left to do was to crawl inside his helmet and use harsh language...  He was out of the fight, totally helpless, knew was about to die and there was nothing he could do about it...  How any of us would handle that situation is unkown until it actually you find yourself in it... Personally, I'd probably act the same way, but with the added issue of having to find some new trousers if I survived...

Another is the fact that Jackson didn't use the steeple as a sniper's nest.. It was an OP and a .30 cal MG position...  Jackson's job during the final battle was to observe & report, and then once the fight was on,  defend the .30 cal...  If he did anything "wrong", it was probably not grabbing an M1 instead of limiting himself to the 'Aught-three... He cut his volume of fire down by about half using it...  On the other hand, he probably hadn't handled an M1 since basic training, so his effectiveness with it is up for debate... 

As for him leaving the area and taking up a position farther away to take shots at the oncoming enemy, that just wasn't gonna happen in a situation like they were in...  It wouldn't have done any good at all, and Jackson would have effectively been out of the fight after a couple shots...

What I find hard to swallow is why 6-12 guys jumped on the tiger to kill the crew

It was more like 4, although I see your point... If the tank crew had their tank longer than a day or two, they'd know to have it combat locked and  no grunt is gonna be able to get a hatch open...   Also, being infantry, It's quite likely though that they didn't know about the combat locks on armored vehicles.. For those of you not familiar with 'em either,  some (or all) hatches have inside locks that cannot be operated from outside the tank or AFV... If the crew has them engaged, you ain't geting in without a cutting torch...

 

I'm y'all have seen the video of  the nutball that stole an M60 and went on a rampage with it in California... One of the cops was successful in shooting the guy after he opened a hatch.  If he'd had it combat locked. they would never have gotten him out...

If you guys had ever read "Our Army at War" comic books starring Sgt. Rock, you'd know that all it takes is one guy with a Thompson to take out any armored vehicle, combat locked or not,   JEESH!!

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

  • Member since
    June 2008
  • From: Iowa
Posted by Hans von Hammer on Monday, March 22, 2010 11:12 PM

Couple of things... One, Ryan was out of ammo, had dozens of bullets whacking into the wall he was using as cover and was totaly and completely pinned down...   About the only thing he had left to do was to crawl inside his helmet and use harsh language...  He was out of the fight, totally helpless, knew was about to die and there was nothing he could do about it...  How any of us would handle that situation is unkown until it actually you find yourself in it... Personally, I'd probably act the same way, but with the added issue of having to find some new trousers if I survived...

Another is the fact that Jackson didn't use the steeple as a sniper's nest.. It was an OP and a .30 cal MG position...  Jackson's job during the final battle was to observe & report, and then once the fight was on,  defend the .30 cal...  If he did anything "wrong", it was probably not grabbing an M1 instead of limiting himself to the 'Aught-three... He cut his volume of fire down by about half using it...  On the other hand, he probably hadn't handled an M1 since basic training, so his effectiveness with it is up for debate... 

As for him leaving the area and taking up a position farther away to take shots at the oncoming enemy, that just wasn't gonna happen in a situation like they were in...  It wouldn't have done any good at all, and Jackson would have effectively been out of the fight after a couple shots...

What I find hard to swallow is why 6-12 guys jumped on the tiger to kill the crew

It was more like 4, although I see your point... If the tank crew had their tank longer than a day or two, they'd know to have it combat locked and  no grunt is gonna be able to get a hatch open...   Also, being infantry, It's quite likely though that they didn't know about the combat locks on armored vehicles.. For those of you not familiar with 'em either,  some (or all) hatches have inside locks that cannot be operated from outside the tank or AFV... If the crew has them engaged, you ain't geting in without a cutting torch...

 

I'm y'all have seen the video of  the nutball that stole an M60 and went on a rampage with it in California... One of the cops was successful in shooting the guy after he opened a hatch.  If he'd had it combat locked. they would never have gotten him out...

  • Member since
    January 2004
Posted by Captain Morgan on Monday, March 22, 2010 10:41 PM

If I was a sniper I would not have cornered myself in a bell tower although it was good for relaying info on troop movemen and for the machine gun position. Intel could have been done by someone else other than the sniper. I believe my spot would have been on the other side of the river shooting at the enemy coming down the road head on.

What I find hard to swallow is why 6-12 guys jumped on the tiger to kill the crew when one or two could have. I doubt that would happen in real combat. 

One last thing, I would not let just one guy distribute all the 30 cal for the machine guns.

After looking at one of the pics it does seem plausible to hit that position or at least right below it.

Theirs not to make reply, Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die: Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred

  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Sunday, March 21, 2010 8:24 PM

New Hampshire

 squeakie:

 New Hampshire:

Hey Gary,

Again, I use the term "hollow point" carefully.  As I said, it is not a Hollow Point as we traditionally think (in that a hollow point for hunting purposes are inteded to expand to a larger size than their bore diameter.)  In the match bullet world the "hollow point" is really more just a cavity of dead air.  Here you can see what I mean (and I may be mistaken, but I believe Sierra provide the military with their match bullets):

http://www.sierrabullets.com/index.cfm?section=bullets&page=rifle&brandID=1

In that image you can see the cavity.  It is NOT meant to expand, merely place the center of gravity slightly more to the rear of the projectile.  But being that it is a cavity none the less it will still deforme more than ball (which as we know does not have that cavity) that is meant to penetrate more on softened targets.  I am pretty sure that the snipers (again, I don't quite know as much about the Army in this respect) have a designated person that handloads all their ammo, though this may have changed lately (since we have seen an abundance in high tech manufacturing processes.)

But I too have noticed the trend drifting more away from the standard .308/7.62 towards more efficient cartridges (.338 Lapua, .300 Win Mag, and I see that the .416 Barrett that he built as a way around the silly California regs is turning out to be quite the revolution).  It is hardly suprising though.  Every month the gun magazines are touting new collaborative offerings that are taking advantage of technological processes (much to the annoyance of the "old timers" Big Smile )

Brian

 

If that bullet has anykind of an opening at the tip, it is in violation of the Geneva Convention.

Actually you are thinking of the Hauge Convention (which predates the Geneva Convention) of which the U.S. was never a signatory, but still abides to it regardless.  And no the Sierra Match bullets do not have an opening in them as they are, once again, not intended for use as an expanding bullet.

Brian

take a good look at a box of Sierra 69 and 53 grain match bullets (#1400 & #1380) I don't have any 30 caliber NM bullets to compair, but in other calibers most all are hollow points if they are NM bullets. The military NM bullet for 30 caliber is usually 175 grain full metal jacketed boat tail bullet. (#M118 current) . The older round used in the 30-06 was a full metal faceted boat tail weighing in at 173 grains and had a # M72. There is a competetive match round for the .308 that uses the 168 grain serirra BTHP national match bullet, but this is also listed as a non combat load.

gary

  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Sunday, March 21, 2010 8:04 PM

44Mac

Actually the 5.56 NATO is a necked up .222 Remington.

                                                               Cheers, Mac

the .222 Remington, and the .223 use the same bullet. The .223 case is a shortened .222 Remington magnum case, not the normal .222 (it's also too short). A few folks actually have tried to neck down the 30-06 case to .223, and the results were a complete disaster. Later they tried to do the samething with a 7x57 Mauser, and it wasn't a lot better (but it did work with a 6mm bullet quite well). So the next move was to neck down the .308 / .243 case to .223. Shot better but the barrels were done after about 600 rounds. Then somebody realized the answer had already been done for eons. We call that round the 22-250 now. Now they are taking the 250 case and necking it up again for the 6mm bullet. This is known as the 6XC, and is winning target matches everywhere. It's nothing but a merry go round

gary

  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Sunday, March 21, 2010 7:55 PM

Bgrigg

Snort! Snicker!!

I believe he is referring to Bill AB50 AKA the .50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act of 2004, which classifies all .50 cals as being 'assault weapons' in order to 'prevent their use as a terrorist weapon' and effectively outlaws their sale, except to California State Agency. Barrett has announced that they would no longer sell any weapons to California agencies, in retaliation (good for them!).

Interestingly, there are no reports of a .50 caliber weapon being used to murder anyone in the US, nor has it been used as a weapon during the committing of a criminal act. So, I guess the bill works, like my anti-Tiger talisman does. After all, it must work, as there ain't no tigers around me!

The .416 is a "necked down" .50 cartridge and sidesteps the bill's limits. It turns out the smaller size has a flatter trajectory, which is a decided benefit.

the 416 Cheytec will replace both of them in the end

gary

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Sunday, March 21, 2010 3:26 PM

Ditto I was just gonna say that. They showed a better perspective of sniper technique there than in most movies. Many flaws in that movie too, but overall a very watchable good show.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    March 2008
  • From: Steilacoom, Washington
Posted by Killjoy on Sunday, March 21, 2010 2:22 PM

Aaronw

Of course its not just SPR, I can't think of one movie that hasn't placed the sniper 1/2 out the window of a tower or top floor of a building.

Which is why I love the sniper scenes from Enemy at the Gates!

A veteran is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America," for an amount of "up to and including my life."

  • Member since
    September 2015
  • From: The Redwood Empire
Posted by Aaronw on Sunday, March 21, 2010 2:16 PM

Going back more to the original topic, I thought the snipers location in the tower alongside the 30 cal mg was a rather amatuer location for a sniper. I mean this guy was supposed to be a great sniper and he picks a spot that a person with nothing more than an interest in military history recognizes as a poor choice (me).

A sniper at the window sill in an obvious point is a poor spot, bell towerrs are specifically given as a bad spot in everything I've ever read, because the enemy will immediately assume that is the snipers location and obliterate it.

Ideally the sniper is located back into the gloom of a building interior, to hide the sniper and muzzle flash, with enough elevation to offer a good view of the approaching enemy without being the highest thing around to draw random fire.

Of course its not just SPR, I can't think of one movie that hasn't placed the sniper 1/2 out the window of a tower or top floor of a building.

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Goffstown, NH
Posted by New Hampshire on Sunday, March 21, 2010 1:40 PM

squeakie

 New Hampshire:

Hey Gary,

Again, I use the term "hollow point" carefully.  As I said, it is not a Hollow Point as we traditionally think (in that a hollow point for hunting purposes are inteded to expand to a larger size than their bore diameter.)  In the match bullet world the "hollow point" is really more just a cavity of dead air.  Here you can see what I mean (and I may be mistaken, but I believe Sierra provide the military with their match bullets):

http://www.sierrabullets.com/index.cfm?section=bullets&page=rifle&brandID=1

In that image you can see the cavity.  It is NOT meant to expand, merely place the center of gravity slightly more to the rear of the projectile.  But being that it is a cavity none the less it will still deforme more than ball (which as we know does not have that cavity) that is meant to penetrate more on softened targets.  I am pretty sure that the snipers (again, I don't quite know as much about the Army in this respect) have a designated person that handloads all their ammo, though this may have changed lately (since we have seen an abundance in high tech manufacturing processes.)

But I too have noticed the trend drifting more away from the standard .308/7.62 towards more efficient cartridges (.338 Lapua, .300 Win Mag, and I see that the .416 Barrett that he built as a way around the silly California regs is turning out to be quite the revolution).  It is hardly suprising though.  Every month the gun magazines are touting new collaborative offerings that are taking advantage of technological processes (much to the annoyance of the "old timers" Big Smile )

Brian

 

If that bullet has anykind of an opening at the tip, it is in violation of the Geneva Convention.

Actually you are thinking of the Hauge Convention (which predates the Geneva Convention) of which the U.S. was never a signatory, but still abides to it regardless.  And no the Sierra Match bullets do not have an opening in them as they are, once again, not intended for use as an expanding bullet.

Brian

  • Member since
    March 2008
  • From: Steilacoom, Washington
Posted by Killjoy on Sunday, March 21, 2010 1:00 PM

Hey, what do you expect from a state where EVERYTHING causes cancer!

Indifferent

A veteran is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America," for an amount of "up to and including my life."

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, March 21, 2010 12:54 PM

Bgrigg

Snort! Snicker!!

I believe he is referring to Bill AB50 AKA the .50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act of 2004, which classifies all .50 cals as being 'assault weapons' in order to 'prevent their use as a terrorist weapon' and effectively outlaws their sale, except to California State Agency. Barrett has announced that they would no longer sell any weapons to California agencies, in retaliation (good for them!).

Interestingly, there are no reports of a .50 caliber weapon being used to murder anyone in the US, nor has it been used as a weapon during the committing of a criminal act. So, I guess the bill works, like my anti-Tiger talisman does. After all, it must work, as there ain't no tigers around me!

The .416 is a "necked down" .50 cartridge and sidesteps the bill's limits. It turns out the smaller size has a flatter trajectory, which is a decided benefit.

As susual (especially in CA) the govt has actually made things worse...noone ever has used a 50 cal rifle in a crime because the size of the weapon is so large as to make it unwieldy in the commission of a crime. So, the gunmakers made a "shorter"  50 cal round, and thus a smaller platform to fire it from, which in effect now makes it easier to use in the commission of a crime. Way to go govt !!!

  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Sunday, March 21, 2010 12:18 PM

New Hampshire

Hey Gary,

Again, I use the term "hollow point" carefully.  As I said, it is not a Hollow Point as we traditionally think (in that a hollow point for hunting purposes are inteded to expand to a larger size than their bore diameter.)  In the match bullet world the "hollow point" is really more just a cavity of dead air.  Here you can see what I mean (and I may be mistaken, but I believe Sierra provide the military with their match bullets):

http://www.sierrabullets.com/index.cfm?section=bullets&page=rifle&brandID=1

In that image you can see the cavity.  It is NOT meant to expand, merely place the center of gravity slightly more to the rear of the projectile.  But being that it is a cavity none the less it will still deforme more than ball (which as we know does not have that cavity) that is meant to penetrate more on softened targets.  I am pretty sure that the snipers (again, I don't quite know as much about the Army in this respect) have a designated person that handloads all their ammo, though this may have changed lately (since we have seen an abundance in high tech manufacturing processes.)

But I too have noticed the trend drifting more away from the standard .308/7.62 towards more efficient cartridges (.338 Lapua, .300 Win Mag, and I see that the .416 Barrett that he built as a way around the silly California regs is turning out to be quite the revolution).  It is hardly suprising though.  Every month the gun magazines are touting new collaborative offerings that are taking advantage of technological processes (much to the annoyance of the "old timers" Big Smile )

Brian

If that bullet has anykind of an opening at the tip, it is in violation of the Geneva Convention. What they are now using is the 168 grain match bullet from several sources, but it's the solid nosed version. There is also a good bit of interest in the 190 grain and 200+ grain bullets from various 300 mags. The Navy has also been playing around with bullets in the 250+ grain area that are solid tungstin ($3 a piece). But the .338 Lapua does all this and much more for less dollars and cents (300 grain bullet with close to .7 B/C). There is a .416 caliber round built on the .404 Jeffery case that has about 97% of the 50 cal. ballistics in a fifteen pound rifle verses the 25+ lb. of the others. When the .338 Savages start shipping; they will take 65% of Barrett's business, and then the price will have to go up to keep them in business. Meaning you'll see less and less of them. We just took delivery of a 50 cal. Barrett about three months ago, and the price tag was $5675 bare. I asked them just what they planed on shooting at? (got no real answer!) The scope for that rifle is going to be close to $2K to be usfull with the range it has, and once again; what for? They donot use the 750 grain bullet from a 50 Cal. Browning, but use the 650 grain match bullet that has less than the magic 1.0 B/C. With that in mind they could have bought two .338 Lapua's with just about the same ballistics (I doubt there's anybody on the SWAT team that's capable f shooting 1500 yards let alone 2000+ yards). The reason they bought the Barrett was due to all the hype, and lack luster performance they are getting out of the Remingtons (so they say). I pointed out to them that they are about fifteen minutes from Ferris Pendel's shop, and he could easilly have fixed the problems for thousands of dollars less.

     Just a note of other rounds used in a sniper's rifle. I got to take a guided tour of the 7th SF compound a few years back, and I saw a lot of 30 caliber stuff. Everything from an M14 NM to a .300 Weatherby mag. They had two different 50 cal rifles. One was a Barrett and the other was a bolt gun of somekind(bet that was fun). Virtually all the 30 caliber stuff used a simple 10x scope that had the zero set at 600 yards. No dials to fool with once it's zero'd as all ranging was done internally. They had different scopes of the same model built for different bullets and different cases.

 

gary

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: 41 Degrees 52.4 minutes North; 72 Degrees 7.3 minutes West
Posted by bbrowniii on Sunday, March 21, 2010 9:54 AM

wing_nut

Why, is Ryan, brave Pvt Ryan that refuses to leave his comrades in arms, at one point sitting in a fetal position with his knees pulled to his chest, screaming/crying (not sure which)?  In the middle of a battle?  And completely out in the open exposed?  Did I miss something?  About 10 times so far?

Marc,

Couple of things:

1) it is easy to be brave when noone is shooting at you, so to stand up and demonstrate resolve when the battle is not raging is an 'easier' thing to do than when it is actually happening.  Granted, to this point, Ryan and the boys had been in the few fights, so he 'knew' what to expect.

2) As to the scene of him in the fetal position - I took that as a scene that was trying to illustrate the intensity, furor, and horror of this particular fight.  At that point, just about everyone else has been shot up, the Germans seem to be ready to roll right over them, the situation seems hopeless, all seems lost.  I think the scene is trying to capture that sentiment.  I mean, up to that point, he had performed pretty well in the fight, so I don't think we can call him a coward.  However, every man has a breaking point, in life and, particularly in combat,

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' - Edmund Burke (1770 ??)

 

  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Piscataway, NJ!
Posted by wing_nut on Sunday, March 21, 2010 9:10 AM

As long as this thread has the title it has... I may as well ask about the thing that has bothered me about SPR since the 1st time I saw it.

Why, is Ryan, brave Pvt Ryan that refuses to leave his comrades in arms, at one point sitting in a fetal position with his knees pulled to his chest, screaming/crying (not sure which)?  In the middle of a battle?  And completely out in the open exposed?  Did I miss something?  About 10 times so far?

Marc  

  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Österreich
Posted by 44Mac on Sunday, March 21, 2010 5:26 AM

Actually the 5.56 NATO is a necked up .222 Remington.

                                                               Cheers, Mac

Strike the tents...

  • Member since
    March 2006
Posted by simpilot34 on Sunday, March 21, 2010 2:57 AM

Same principal behind the NATO 5.56 used in the M-16. A 30/06 casing necked to a .223 Higher velocities and flatter trajectories are the by products.

Cheers, Lt. Cmdr. Richie "To be prepared for war, is one of the most effectual means of preserving the peace."-George Washington
  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Goffstown, NH
Posted by New Hampshire on Saturday, March 20, 2010 11:02 PM

Killjoy

 New Hampshire:

But I too have noticed the trend drifting more away from the standard .308/7.62 towards more efficient cartridges (.338 Lapua, .300 Win Mag, and I see that the .416 Barrett that he built as a way around the silly California regs is turning out to be quite the revolution). 

 

Sorry to sound clueless, but what "silly California reg?"

The state of California banned any firearms with a bore diameter of .50 an inch (this included, I believe, even black powder rifles that the grand daddy's of our grand daddy's had been using since time immemorable.)  This of course applied ONLY to California residents and not the state's police agencies which owned a number of the .50BMG Barrett rifles.  Ronnie Barrett, in defiance, told the State'spolice agency he would no longer honor the warranty on their rifles, nor sell them parts for them.  He then helped design the .416 Barrett which uses the .50BMG as it's parent case but necked to .416 as a way to offer California citizens the ability to use his rifle platforms again.

Brian

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: Left forever
Posted by Bgrigg on Saturday, March 20, 2010 10:58 PM

Snort! Snicker!!

I believe he is referring to Bill AB50 AKA the .50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act of 2004, which classifies all .50 cals as being 'assault weapons' in order to 'prevent their use as a terrorist weapon' and effectively outlaws their sale, except to California State Agency. Barrett has announced that they would no longer sell any weapons to California agencies, in retaliation (good for them!).

Interestingly, there are no reports of a .50 caliber weapon being used to murder anyone in the US, nor has it been used as a weapon during the committing of a criminal act. So, I guess the bill works, like my anti-Tiger talisman does. After all, it must work, as there ain't no tigers around me!

The .416 is a "necked down" .50 cartridge and sidesteps the bill's limits. It turns out the smaller size has a flatter trajectory, which is a decided benefit.

So long folks!

  • Member since
    March 2006
Posted by simpilot34 on Saturday, March 20, 2010 10:47 PM

Killjoy
 

 

Sorry to sound clueless, but what "silly California reg?"

All of 'em!!!!!!!!

Cheers, Lt. Cmdr. Richie "To be prepared for war, is one of the most effectual means of preserving the peace."-George Washington
  • Member since
    March 2008
  • From: Steilacoom, Washington
Posted by Killjoy on Saturday, March 20, 2010 10:41 PM

New Hampshire

But I too have noticed the trend drifting more away from the standard .308/7.62 towards more efficient cartridges (.338 Lapua, .300 Win Mag, and I see that the .416 Barrett that he built as a way around the silly California regs is turning out to be quite the revolution). 

Sorry to sound clueless, but what "silly California reg?"

A veteran is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America," for an amount of "up to and including my life."

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Goffstown, NH
Posted by New Hampshire on Saturday, March 20, 2010 10:22 PM

Hey Gary,

Again, I use the term "hollow point" carefully.  As I said, it is not a Hollow Point as we traditionally think (in that a hollow point for hunting purposes are inteded to expand to a larger size than their bore diameter.)  In the match bullet world the "hollow point" is really more just a cavity of dead air.  Here you can see what I mean (and I may be mistaken, but I believe Sierra provide the military with their match bullets):

http://www.sierrabullets.com/index.cfm?section=bullets&page=rifle&brandID=1

In that image you can see the cavity.  It is NOT meant to expand, merely place the center of gravity slightly more to the rear of the projectile.  But being that it is a cavity none the less it will still deforme more than ball (which as we know does not have that cavity) that is meant to penetrate more on softened targets.  I am pretty sure that the snipers (again, I don't quite know as much about the Army in this respect) have a designated person that handloads all their ammo, though this may have changed lately (since we have seen an abundance in high tech manufacturing processes.)

But I too have noticed the trend drifting more away from the standard .308/7.62 towards more efficient cartridges (.338 Lapua, .300 Win Mag, and I see that the .416 Barrett that he built as a way around the silly California regs is turning out to be quite the revolution).  It is hardly suprising though.  Every month the gun magazines are touting new collaborative offerings that are taking advantage of technological processes (much to the annoyance of the "old timers" Big Smile )

Brian

  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Saturday, March 20, 2010 5:49 PM

New Hampshire

Carlos Hathcock is a legend and I sure believe that he did what he said....Marines don't lie! Big Smile  All kidding aside, though, I believe for a confirmed "kill" to be accepted by the higher ups it needs to be confirmed by a second party (usualy the spotter) so I would assume his claim was verified.

 

And one other note, this might not be possible with todays sniper craft only because back in Nam they used bullets more closer to ball (but with tighter tolerances than normal) whereas todays more modern bullets snipers use (or to say the Marines since I think the Army SPR uses ball .223 and I am not to up on what other specialty rifles they use for sniping) match bullets of a higher quality.  And said bullets have more of a "hollow point"...I put that in quotes because it is not actually a hollow point in traditional terms, rather there is a hollow cavity in the nose section which places the projectiles center of gravity slightly more to the rear.  Said cavity much cause the bullet to tumble to easily when striking hard glass, and I don't know if a tumbling bullet would hvae enough "oomph" to get through modern optics which usually have several lenses in them.  But this is all conjecture of course and an interesting discussion!

Brian

P.S.  Oh, just remembered there is also the Barret .50BMG's snipers use.  That, I am pretty sure, uses straight ball, but regardless that puppy has plenty of oomph to get through just about any glass, hollow cavity or not.  Of course they don't use them regularly on "soft" targets both because it is overkill, but also because in general the MOA on a .50 is a bit larger than the size of a human body.  Human body, small.  Engine block on vehicles, LARGE! Stick out tongue

The word "Ball" means that the bullet is a full metal jacketed bullet. There is nobody using anykind if a hollow point or soft point bullet in the military. Some have used a steel tipped bullet in the past, but not for accuracey reasons. A typical national match 30 caliber round used by the U.S. military will have a ballistic co-efficent of around .46 to .48. That's pretty good by most any standard. What that refers to is how the bullet retains velocity in flight as well as how well it reacts to cross winds, etc. The higher the number the better it is. A 1.0 is considered perfect (some 50 cal. ammunition has this B/C factor as well as a couple .416 dia. bullets that will probably put all 50 cal. out of business). They can do 30 cal. bullets well into the .55 to low .60's, but they don't shoot well in a 7.62 Nato case. Thus quite a few folks are taking a real strong look at the various .300 mags. A .56 B/C in a .300 Weatherby case is a solid 1500 yard round in the right rifle and will the right shooter. The Europeans are starting to use a .338 caliber round that will probably replace 90% of the 50's over there. Mobility is the key factor here. Under 500 yards the good old M14 is still king; which means that an M1d or a Springfield will work just as well assuming the are built to the same quality.

     The hottest snipers rifle on the market right now is the Savage 110BAS. It will be sold in .308 or .338 Lapua as a system. They cost about half of what everything else sells for are are a little more sccurate right out of the box.

gary

  • Member since
    December 2008
  • From: Goffstown, NH
Posted by New Hampshire on Saturday, March 20, 2010 4:58 PM

Carlos Hathcock is a legend and I sure believe that he did what he said....Marines don't lie! Big Smile  All kidding aside, though, I believe for a confirmed "kill" to be accepted by the higher ups it needs to be confirmed by a second party (usualy the spotter) so I would assume his claim was verified.

 

And one other note, this might not be possible with todays sniper craft only because back in Nam they used bullets more closer to ball (but with tighter tolerances than normal) whereas todays more modern bullets snipers use (or to say the Marines since I think the Army SPR uses ball .223 and I am not to up on what other specialty rifles they use for sniping) match bullets of a higher quality.  And said bullets have more of a "hollow point"...I put that in quotes because it is not actually a hollow point in traditional terms, rather there is a hollow cavity in the nose section which places the projectiles center of gravity slightly more to the rear.  Said cavity much cause the bullet to tumble to easily when striking hard glass, and I don't know if a tumbling bullet would hvae enough "oomph" to get through modern optics which usually have several lenses in them.  But this is all conjecture of course and an interesting discussion!

Brian

P.S.  Oh, just remembered there is also the Barret .50BMG's snipers use.  That, I am pretty sure, uses straight ball, but regardless that puppy has plenty of oomph to get through just about any glass, hollow cavity or not.  Of course they don't use them regularly on "soft" targets both because it is overkill, but also because in general the MOA on a .50 is a bit larger than the size of a human body.  Human body, small.  Engine block on vehicles, LARGE! Stick out tongue

  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Saturday, March 20, 2010 12:13 PM

Bgrigg

 squeakie:

 

 Bgrigg:

 

They "busted" it on their show, but then recanted later on to make it "plausible".

Damn near impossible, and I suspect that even Havecock isn't innocent of exaggeration.

And here's a video:

 

'); // -->

 

Took many attempts, and armor piercing rounds to do it.

 

 

if you have a national match rifle that is zeroed accurately (usually around 250 to 300 yards back then) the bullets is going to be very close to what you aim at. Secondly you also have to remember that you talking 30 caliber ball amunition. It could care less if it's glass or bone; it's comming. The shots with all probability were less than 200 yards. Best way to prove this out is to take a piece 1/8" thick glass, and glue it to something to act as a spacer that's about two inches thick. Now glue the spacer to a piece of cardboard (paper or whatever). Then shoot it at 100 yards. If Mythbusters has a clue, then the bullet will either go thru the cardboard sideways or blow up. But if you see a round hole in the cardboard you know it can be done (be sure to use ball ammo). Going thru the scope tube, the bullet will always take the path of least resistence, and that's physics 101.

     These same guys proved that you couldn't shoot an arrow inside another, and that gave me a good laugh. I sent them several photos of arrows inside other arrows that my brother inlaw has shot thru the years (hundreds). If anything's a myth with these guys it's Mythbusters themselves

gary

 

Gary, did you watch the video to the end? They finally managed to duplicate the event, but it wasn't easy.

Bullets can take some pretty wild rides after they hit something. They tumble and bounce around, and lose their kinetic energy very quickly once they do.

There was a State Trooper in Washington State, that was patrolling on a motorcycle. He pulled over a car whose tags came up on the tip sheet and when the cop walked up to the window the perp shot the cop point blank in the face with a .38 revolver. The bullet hit his jawbone, traveled around his skull just under the skin (helped in part by the helmet) and exited his face and ended up lodging in the perp's shoulder. So you could say the perp shot himself. The cop, barely injured by these events other than a sore jaw and some bleeding, took the "suspect" into custody. Bet that surprised the heck out of the perp! It would sure be difficult to reproduce. Especially by Mythbusters.

I agree with as much as I disagree with you. The flaw in your statement was that the bullet was probably a .357 dia. flat nosed bullet. Not exacting the most aerodynamic piece on the planet. Take into fact as well that the bullet was probably going at about 900 fps on impact. It took the path of least resistence, but had the bullet broken the bone with a direct impact the story would be different. Here it was the angle of the hit. Now we look at a 30-06 at 200 yards firing a 165 grain bullet (a national match quality boat tail bullet). The bullet will have a little over 1800 ftlb. of energy, so it ain't stopping for much of anything. With a typical 250 yard zero (for that era), the bullet is virtually dead on from 200 to 300 yards when looking at a 1" target diameter (diameter of the scope). Think of it this way; if a guy can make a head shot at 1000 yards (been done thousands of times) with a six inch kill zone, then divid the six inches by ten. That's six tenths of an inch diameter group, but there's more. You also must factor in wind and elevation (shooting uphill or down hill changes everything). So a six inch group at 1000 yards is probably a .45" group at 100 yards on a good day. If I had a junk scope; I'd go out an do it for you all to see

gary

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, March 20, 2010 8:14 AM

This thread is turning into a myth---everything from re-visiting the "magic bullet theory" to the Waffen SS all being war criminals...

  • Member since
    September 2009
  • From: Rugby, England
Posted by Hinksy on Saturday, March 20, 2010 8:09 AM

O Iooh yes!

My Dad's a head Gamekeeper (pheasants & Partridge) on a big shoot here in the UK. We also do a lot of vermin control. Apart from shotguns we use(d) rifles ranging from .22 rimfire right up to .243 centrefire. He then decided to buy a 7mm Remington for use deer stalking.

The first time we took it out to zero I made the classic mistake and didn't give the scope enough eye clearance-I had a black eye for a week. I'd been used to shooting a moderated .22-250 which with the Reflex Moderator fitted had barely any recoil. This 7mm is an animal!

A year or so down the clay shooting ground the local gunsmith Norman Clark bought down a Monstrous .500/.465 Nitro Express custom side-by-side BIG game gun which he'd built for a wealthy customer. He wanted to test fire it. One shot with open sights gave hime a nose bleed from both nostrils, two black eyes and minor concussion - impressive Big Smile

Ben Cool 

On the Bench - Dragon Pz. IV Ausf. G (L.A.H.) Yes

Your image is loading...

 

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: Left forever
Posted by Bgrigg on Friday, March 19, 2010 5:15 PM

squeakie

 

 Bgrigg:

 

They "busted" it on their show, but then recanted later on to make it "plausible".

Damn near impossible, and I suspect that even Havecock isn't innocent of exaggeration.

And here's a video:

 

'); // -->

 

Took many attempts, and armor piercing rounds to do it.

 

 

if you have a national match rifle that is zeroed accurately (usually around 250 to 300 yards back then) the bullets is going to be very close to what you aim at. Secondly you also have to remember that you talking 30 caliber ball amunition. It could care less if it's glass or bone; it's comming. The shots with all probability were less than 200 yards. Best way to prove this out is to take a piece 1/8" thick glass, and glue it to something to act as a spacer that's about two inches thick. Now glue the spacer to a piece of cardboard (paper or whatever). Then shoot it at 100 yards. If Mythbusters has a clue, then the bullet will either go thru the cardboard sideways or blow up. But if you see a round hole in the cardboard you know it can be done (be sure to use ball ammo). Going thru the scope tube, the bullet will always take the path of least resistence, and that's physics 101.

     These same guys proved that you couldn't shoot an arrow inside another, and that gave me a good laugh. I sent them several photos of arrows inside other arrows that my brother inlaw has shot thru the years (hundreds). If anything's a myth with these guys it's Mythbusters themselves

gary

Gary, did you watch the video to the end? They finally managed to duplicate the event, but it wasn't easy.

Bullets can take some pretty wild rides after they hit something. They tumble and bounce around, and lose their kinetic energy very quickly once they do.

There was a State Trooper in Washington State, that was patrolling on a motorcycle. He pulled over a car whose tags came up on the tip sheet and when the cop walked up to the window the perp shot the cop point blank in the face with a .38 revolver. The bullet hit his jawbone, traveled around his skull just under the skin (helped in part by the helmet) and exited his face and ended up lodging in the perp's shoulder. So you could say the perp shot himself. The cop, barely injured by these events other than a sore jaw and some bleeding, took the "suspect" into custody. Bet that surprised the heck out of the perp! It would sure be difficult to reproduce. Especially by Mythbusters.

So long folks!

  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Friday, March 19, 2010 5:06 PM

HawkeyeHobbies

Ever see any one get a black eye from not properly holding their scope equipped rifle? The recoil leaves a nasty shiner. Our squadron safety officer sported one for about six weeks after open day of hunting season, when asked...Don't Go There! LOL

Though the bullet may not penetrate the multiple lenses inside the scope tube, the kinetic energy of the bullet, especially a 170 grain or better 30 cal would cause the scope to fragment and even drive the scope backwards into the skull of the shooter enough to cause significant blunt force trauma to kill. The brain is a well insulated and resilient organ, but a well placed sharp blow can have fatal consequences.

**although the bullet is 30 caliber you have to remember it's a full metal jacketed bullet. They don't usually blow up at the velocities shot out of a 30-06 or a .308. Tobe exact they don't deform much either.

Lets not also rule out the bullet itself. It could fragment upon impact with the front lens and spray bits and pieces into the face and head of the opposing shooter too. Render him blind, you remove the threat. There are some vital places on the skull and neck that if punctured by a bullet's jacket could cause enough blood loss to kill quickly.

**rifle bullets used by the military snipers are fairly heavy jacketed, and have a C/G error in the .00025" range. As long as the bullet is stablized in flight; they know just about exactly where it's going as they squeeze the trigger.

Remember in the Civil War, snipers were accurate, but the weapons they used to kill were less effect than those of today. Most times the sniper just seriously injured the person he was shooting at. Blood loss and infection usually are what did the actual killing.

**CSA used a lot of Whitworth target rifles for sniper's weapons. They were good for at least 700 yards, and many one shot kills were recorded at 850+ yards. (Gen. Sedgwick took a head shot at 850 yard during the Battle of The Wilderness)

Just because it can't be replicated doesn't mean it didn't happen. Many things in our lives happen but can't be repeated. I once saw the after effects of a tornado that hit a drive in restaurant. The plastic drinking straws were driven into a telephone pole!!! They looked like porcupine quills sticking out of it and when you tugged on them, you couldn't easily pull them out. Try replicating that!

gary

  • Member since
    March 2008
  • From: Steilacoom, Washington
Posted by Killjoy on Friday, March 19, 2010 4:56 PM

Hans von Hammer

      At any rate, Miller (or SGT Horvath for that matter) must have figured it out (or seen it before; they'd both been in the sh*t since Operation Torch, remember) since they pretty much left Caparzo to bleed out.   Getting the sniper or skirting him was a higher priority than saving Carparzo's life... 

Or I could be all ate up and just typing... But that's my theory...

 

Nope HvH, I agree with you.  I spent 6 years in the infantry, and bith the theory of 1 casualty taking 4 guys out of the fight, and the intent of leadership to not allow a sniper to produce additional casualties to save 1 man are very sound tactical doctrine.

As for the earlier arguements about a bullet going through the scope, well look at all the amazing tricks the round that killed JFK did! Whistling

I'm not sayin' it did. but it could have.  Either way, it was a damn fine movie!

Chris

A veteran is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America," for an amount of "up to and including my life."

  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Friday, March 19, 2010 4:54 PM

Bgrigg

They "busted" it on their show, but then recanted later on to make it "plausible".

Damn near impossible, and I suspect that even Havecock isn't innocent of exaggeration.

And here's a video:

'); // -->

Took many attempts, and armor piercing rounds to do it.

if you have a national match rifle that is zeroed accurately (usually around 250 to 300 yards back then) the bullets is going to be very close to what you aim at. Secondly you also have to remember that you talking 30 caliber ball amunition. It could care less if it's glass or bone; it's comming. The shots with all probability were less than 200 yards. Best way to prove this out is to take a piece 1/8" thick glass, and glue it to something to act as a spacer that's about two inches thick. Now glue the spacer to a piece of cardboard (paper or whatever). Then shoot it at 100 yards. If Mythbusters has a clue, then the bullet will either go thru the cardboard sideways or blow up. But if you see a round hole in the cardboard you know it can be done (be sure to use ball ammo). Going thru the scope tube, the bullet will always take the path of least resistence, and that's physics 101.

     These same guys proved that you couldn't shoot an arrow inside another, and that gave me a good laugh. I sent them several photos of arrows inside other arrows that my brother inlaw has shot thru the years (hundreds). If anything's a myth with these guys it's Mythbusters themselves

gary

  • Member since
    June 2008
  • From: Iowa
Posted by Hans von Hammer on Friday, March 19, 2010 4:15 PM

stikpusher

"Medic Hunting' like the sniper in Full Metal Jacket?

      Yeah, that's as close as I've seen it in any other movie... Taking out the Doc was illegal in WW2 (it's not anymore, the Doc is a combatant now, has been for about 25 years since they started carying rifles) and actually was observed that way by both sides pretty much (except for the Waffen-SS types) all the time... During the Hurtgen Forrest battle, several cease-fires were called to allow the Docs from both sides out there to treat and remove casualties...  In other places, and if the Krauts were feeling generous that day , they'd actually lift their fire if they saw the Red Crosses out there... Neither German Sanistatzen nor American Medics generaly carried weapons (they could, but then only pistols & knives, which were classed as defensive weapons). Rifles & grenades are offensive weapons and a Doc with a rifle made him a combatant, both legally and tactically speaking...  

     Anyway, the theory was that if you took out the Doc, you could take out several other guys as well, even if you didn't shoot 'em... They were out of the fight transporting the casualty to the BAS... That's a minimum of four men (or as many as six) outta the fight with two rounds (the initial casualty, the Doc, and two guys to carry the first casualty outta harm's way)...

      At any rate, Miller (or SGT Horvath for that matter) must have figured it out (or seen it before; they'd both been in the sh*t since Operation Torch, remember) since they pretty much left Caparzo to bleed out.   Getting the sniper or skirting him was a higher priority than saving Carparzo's life... 

Or I could be all ate up and just typing... But that's my theory...

 

 

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: Left forever
Posted by Bgrigg on Friday, March 19, 2010 3:15 PM

Hans von Hammer

 

I suspect that even Havecock isn't innocent of exaggeration.

 

Ahem... I'm thinking you mean (Carlos) Hathcock...

Ooooops! That's the guy! Embarrassed

I was eleven the first time I fired a scoped rifle. .308's have a LOT of kick! Learned REAL fast how to hold the rifle properly. Black Eye

So long folks!

  • Member since
    August 2006
  • From: Neenah, WI
Posted by HawkeyeHobbies on Friday, March 19, 2010 2:53 PM

Ever see any one get a black eye from not properly holding their scope equipped rifle? The recoil leaves a nasty shiner. Our squadron safety officer sported one for about six weeks after open day of hunting season, when asked...Don't Go There! LOL

Though the bullet may not penetrate the multiple lenses inside the scope tube, the kinetic energy of the bullet, especially a 170 grain or better 30 cal would cause the scope to fragment and even drive the scope backwards into the skull of the shooter enough to cause significant blunt force trauma to kill. The brain is a well insulated and resilient organ, but a well placed sharp blow can have fatal consequences.

Lets not also rule out the bullet itself. It could fragment upon impact with the front lens and spray bits and pieces into the face and head of the opposing shooter too. Render him blind, you remove the threat. There are some vital places on the skull and neck that if punctured by a bullet's jacket could cause enough blood loss to kill quickly.

Remember in the Civil War, snipers were accurate, but the weapons they used to kill were less effect than those of today. Most times the sniper just seriously injured the person he was shooting at. Blood loss and infection usually are what did the actual killing.

Just because it can't be replicated doesn't mean it didn't happen. Many things in our lives happen but can't be repeated. I once saw the after effects of a tornado that hit a drive in restaurant. The plastic drinking straws were driven into a telephone pole!!! They looked like porcupine quills sticking out of it and when you tugged on them, you couldn't easily pull them out. Try replicating that!

Gerald "Hawkeye" Voigt

http://hawkeyes-squawkbox.com/

 

 

"Its not the workbench that makes the model, it is the modeler at the workbench."

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Friday, March 19, 2010 2:15 PM

"Medic Hunting' like the sniper in Full Metal Jacket?

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    June 2008
  • From: Iowa
Posted by Hans von Hammer on Friday, March 19, 2010 1:18 PM

I suspect that even Havecock isn't innocent of exaggeration.

Ahem... I'm thinking you mean (Carlos) Hathcock...

BTW, look at the "Jackson vs Kraut sniper-scene" again... It ain't a bullet hole in his eye, it's a piece of the scope... If ya wanna get technical, it didn't need to be a lethal shot and we were never shown that they went up there (or at least, someone did) to make sure the Kraut was dead...  The shock from the bullet hitting the scope and the scope hitting the sniper, it's quite plausible that he was knocked silly by it, rather than killed... At any rate, and speaking as a Professional Soldier, I would NEVER take it for granted that a sniper was dead... I'd go up there and guaran-damn-tee it... Repeatedly...

I HATE snipers...

Also, I think the Kraut was "Medic-Hunting"... 

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: Left forever
Posted by Bgrigg on Friday, March 19, 2010 12:05 PM

They "busted" it on their show, but then recanted later on to make it "plausible".

Damn near impossible, and I suspect that even Havecock isn't innocent of exaggeration.

And here's a video:

Took many attempts, and armor piercing rounds to do it.

So long folks!

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: 41 Degrees 52.4 minutes North; 72 Degrees 7.3 minutes West
Posted by bbrowniii on Friday, March 19, 2010 11:47 AM

There is only one way to settle this debate - someone get on the phone to the guys at Mythbusters.  Actually, check that, I'm going to their website now....Geeked

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' - Edmund Burke (1770 ??)

 

  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Friday, March 19, 2010 11:41 AM

Hinksy

 smeagol the vile:

also, quite impossible to do that whole, shoot right down the opponent's sniper scope and kill them thing.  the lenses deflect the bullet, the most it will do is destroy his scope, even if you hit it direct center

 

Hey Smeagol,

Interesting you should mention this. Some friends and I have discussed the possibility of this happening and apparently it's been proven that it's nigh on impossible, especially at that range and elevation. (a programme was shown on UK telly about it and they tried to recrate the scene with a dummy).

Just enjoy SPR for what it is - a bloody good film with some pretty bad historical/technical flaws!

ATVB

Ben Yes

think about this situation a minute. A sniper's rifle in WWII was good for six to eight hundred yards. Capable of holding 3/4 minute of angle if not better. Now most scopes use a 1 inch tube, but some use a 30mm tube. Most of then were pretty much a strait tube at four power or less. Your eye dosn't need anymore light than this combo puts out at 2x, and is still pretty good at 4x (2.5 factor). Now a 4x scope is all you need under three hundred yards, and if the guy is good at his trade he'll have no problem shooting 2 1/2" groups at 300 yards. Probably much closer to 2" at 300 yards. Now with a hardball bullet hit the glass at 250 yards it's not going to deform much, and the tube will act as a funnel guiding the deformed nose right into the target. Has it been done? Many times. At least a couple times in WWII, and several times in Vietnam. With todays varmit rifles (speaking of good ones like a Savage or a Remington) it would be easy to do this all the way out to 400 yards and maybe even 550 yards if the gun is exceptional

gary

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Western North Carolina
Posted by Tojo72 on Friday, March 19, 2010 8:31 AM

smeagol the vile

also, quite impossible to do that whole, shoot right down the opponent's sniper scope and kill them thing.  the lenses deflect the bullet, the most it will do is destroy his scope, even if you hit it direct center

Yes,But it's REALLY COOL !!CoolWow

  • Member since
    March 2006
Posted by simpilot34 on Friday, March 19, 2010 8:30 AM

smeagol the vile

also, quite impossible to do that whole, shoot right down the opponent's sniper scope and kill them thing.  the lenses deflect the bullet, the most it will do is destroy his scope, even if you hit it direct center

Impossible? Tell that to Carlos Hathcock!

Cheers, Lt. Cmdr. Richie "To be prepared for war, is one of the most effectual means of preserving the peace."-George Washington
  • Member since
    March 2008
  • From: The Bluegrass State
Posted by EasyMike on Friday, March 19, 2010 8:26 AM

Wirraway
...Does this sound hokey to you ?...

Psst!  It's a movie.

Wink

  • Member since
    September 2009
  • From: Rugby, England
Posted by Hinksy on Friday, March 19, 2010 8:17 AM

smeagol the vile

also, quite impossible to do that whole, shoot right down the opponent's sniper scope and kill them thing.  the lenses deflect the bullet, the most it will do is destroy his scope, even if you hit it direct center

Hey Smeagol,

Interesting you should mention this. Some friends and I have discussed the possibility of this happening and apparently it's been proven that it's nigh on impossible, especially at that range and elevation. (a programme was shown on UK telly about it and they tried to recrate the scene with a dummy).

Just enjoy SPR for what it is - a bloody good film with some pretty bad historical/technical flaws!

ATVB

Ben Yes

On the Bench - Dragon Pz. IV Ausf. G (L.A.H.) Yes

Your image is loading...

 

  • Member since
    April 2008
  • From: Philadelphia PA
Posted by smeagol the vile on Friday, March 19, 2010 6:35 AM

also, quite impossible to do that whole, shoot right down the opponent's sniper scope and kill them thing.  the lenses deflect the bullet, the most it will do is destroy his scope, even if you hit it direct center

 

  • Member since
    January 2006
  • From: Pineapple Country, Queensland, Australia
Posted by Wirraway on Friday, March 19, 2010 4:51 AM

stikpusher

Yup, just like Kelly's Heroes did. But it is a  LOT beter than 40 years ago for most major war movies when all you got were M-47s and M48s painted gray with a German cross and a double baffle muzzle brake added sometimes.

I hear ya, Stik.  I just bought "Battle of the Bulge" movie on DVD.  In the "special features" part of the DVD, was an old (1966) interview with Milton Sperling, the producer of the movie.  He was asked about getting so much armour together for such an epic (for its time) movie.  He carries on about how difficult it was to find the authentic  German tanks used in the film.  Geez, what planet is this guy from.  And its not like he was totally ignorant, he served in a photographic unit with USMC forces in the PTO.

"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional"

" A hobby should pass the time - not fill it"  -Norman Bates

 

GIF animations generator gifup.com

  • Member since
    March 2010
Posted by eboggs on Thursday, March 18, 2010 5:34 PM

bbrowniii

Hey Ethan

Did you happen to catch the 'rivet counter' thread in one of the other forums... Stick out tongueWhistling

Nah, I'm just bustin' on ya'... but I don't think most people would know, and to be honest, even if I did know, I probably wouldn't care.  It is just the nature of the beast - you have to suspend a certain amount of disbelief anytime Hollywood is involved. 

CoolGeeked

haha i know i know..but my other hobby is collecting and shooting military surplus rifles...

and as much as i dont care about innaccuracies in movies...I just HAD to bring it up as i woulda never known about the tank..and...i gotta be anal atleast once in my life about a movie haha

PLUS...I Knew! haha

ethan

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Thursday, March 18, 2010 3:45 PM

Yup, just like Kelly's Heroes did. But it is a  LOT beter than 40 years ago for most major war movies when all you got were M-47s and M48s painted gray with a German cross and a double baffle muzzle brake added sometimes.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    October 2009
  • From: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
Saving Private Ryan - this has been bugging me
Posted by Njal Thorgeirsson on Thursday, March 18, 2010 3:33 PM

Now that we're on the topic of SPR inaccuracies... Did anyone else notice something odd about the Tiger 1? Its on a T-34 chassis... Which makes sense, because working Tiger I's aren't exactly the easiest thing to get one's hands on.

FACEBOOK: Ryan Olson Thorgeirsson for pics of all my builds.

"There are two kinds of people in this world; those who put fries/chips on their sandwiches, and those who don't enjoy life."

PhotobucketPhotobucket

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: 41 Degrees 52.4 minutes North; 72 Degrees 7.3 minutes West
Posted by bbrowniii on Thursday, March 18, 2010 3:31 PM

eboggs

 stikpusher:

 eboggs:

Im glad the vehicle was the only thing buggin you guys cause GOSH..that DARN SNIPER RIFLE Jackson uses through the whole movie sure BUGS THE HECK OUTTA ME!!  Stick out tongue

Ethan

 

What about his Springfield '03 bugs you?

All in all a very watchable historical fiction war movie, although with many technical goofs. But better than most out there.

 

The rifle used is a 1903A4..a Designated Sniper rifle based off the 1903A3... In the Movie..well in the beginning jackson uses the shorter scope (M81) Correst scope for the rifle..during the "Sniper on Sniper" scene..Jackson changes his scope to the longer..older "Unertl" scope...

Two things wrong here...

1) You cant just go swapping scopes like that...Windage..elevation..all needs zeroed AGAIN once you remount a scope...Ths is impossible..especially since the rear base on these rifles adjusted windage..so a one shot kill is totally bogus...

2) the second longer scope (Unertl) was never used on the 1903A4...Nor was there any way he could mount this scope (Legitamently) on the 1903A4 platform..

BUT...the Unertl was used on 1903's...USMC Rifle teams used this scope. I believe it did see some combat roles in WWII (im not too well read up on this particular setup) and saw service in Vietnam on the M70 platform.

Sorry I know its a movie and its good but i just had to bring it up haha..I guess it doesnt bug me that much

ALSO...Springfield only manufactured 1903's....not 1903a3's...Only Remington and Smith corona.. haha sorry sorry.

Ethan

Hey Ethan

Did you happen to catch the 'rivet counter' thread in one of the other forums... Stick out tongueWhistling

Nah, I'm just bustin' on ya'... but I don't think most people would know, and to be honest, even if I did know, I probably wouldn't care.  It is just the nature of the beast - you have to suspend a certain amount of disbelief anytime Hollywood is involved. 

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' - Edmund Burke (1770 ??)

 

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Thursday, March 18, 2010 3:25 PM

I think this is where Hanks was introduced to the WW2 bug. But Speilberg ahd it way before. Empire of the Sun (one of my personal favorite movies) and Schindlers List are two shining examples. And of course having the homage to Saturday Matinee serials with Nazi Bad Guys in two of his Indiana Jones movies. And even 1941 is another one where the WWII atmosphere was done pretty well. Yes they all have technical flaws, but he really went out of his way to bring back that era.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    May 2009
  • From: Hobart, Tasmania
Posted by Konigwolf13 on Thursday, March 18, 2010 3:10 PM

I agree its got entertainment value, but where it shines is the practice that hanks/spielberg took and learned from to make BoB, thats where it shines IMHO

Andrew

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: Central Wisconsin
Posted by Spamicus on Thursday, March 18, 2010 2:53 PM

Like most movies about any war I think a guy should watch it for the entertainment value not for the history. SPR is a great movie but very bad history on many levels.

Steve

  • Member since
    March 2010
Posted by eboggs on Thursday, March 18, 2010 2:25 PM

stikpusher

 eboggs:

Im glad the vehicle was the only thing buggin you guys cause GOSH..that DARN SNIPER RIFLE Jackson uses through the whole movie sure BUGS THE HECK OUTTA ME!!  Stick out tongue

Ethan

 

What about his Springfield '03 bugs you?

All in all a very watchable historical fiction war movie, although with many technical goofs. But better than most out there.

The rifle used is a 1903A4..a Designated Sniper rifle based off the 1903A3... In the Movie..well in the beginning jackson uses the shorter scope (M81) Correst scope for the rifle..during the "Sniper on Sniper" scene..Jackson changes his scope to the longer..older "Unertl" scope...

Two things wrong here...

1) You cant just go swapping scopes like that...Windage..elevation..all needs zeroed AGAIN once you remount a scope...Ths is impossible..especially since the rear base on these rifles adjusted windage..so a one shot kill is totally bogus...

2) the second longer scope (Unertl) was never used on the 1903A4...Nor was there any way he could mount this scope (Legitamently) on the 1903A4 platform..

BUT...the Unertl was used on 1903's...USMC Rifle teams used this scope. I believe it did see some combat roles in WWII (im not too well read up on this particular setup) and saw service in Vietnam on the M70 platform.

Sorry I know its a movie and its good but i just had to bring it up haha..I guess it doesnt bug me that much

ALSO...Springfield only manufactured 1903's....not 1903a3's...Only Remington and Smith corona.. haha sorry sorry.

Ethan

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Thursday, March 18, 2010 1:40 PM

eboggs

Im glad the vehicle was the only thing buggin you guys cause GOSH..that DARN SNIPER RIFLE Jackson uses through the whole movie sure BUGS THE HECK OUTTA ME!!  Stick out tongue

Ethan

What about his Springfield '03 bugs you?

All in all a very watchable historical fiction war movie, although with many technical goofs. But better than most out there.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Texas
Posted by wbill76 on Thursday, March 18, 2010 1:33 PM

The vehicle it's supposed to represent is a Marder III H...and the elevation angle required to hit the bell tower isn't out of the realm of possibility for it. The gun could elevate to a maximum of +10 degrees so the distance and relative angle to the target would have to be known to be sure on whether the actual shot was within the capability or "Hollywood-ized". Wink

  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Thursday, March 18, 2010 11:37 AM

eboggs

Im glad the vehicle was the only thing buggin you guys cause GOSH..that DARN SNIPER RIFLE Jackson uses through the whole movie sure BUGS THE HECK OUTTA ME!!  Stick out tongue

Ethan

 

and why?

gary

  • Member since
    March 2010
Posted by eboggs on Thursday, March 18, 2010 10:58 AM

Im glad the vehicle was the only thing buggin you guys cause GOSH..that DARN SNIPER RIFLE Jackson uses through the whole movie sure BUGS THE HECK OUTTA ME!!  Stick out tongue

Ethan

  • Member since
    October 2008
  • From: New Jersey
Posted by oddmanrush on Thursday, March 18, 2010 10:52 AM

Looks like a SAV M/43, which is Swedish I believe, and based on the 38(t) chassis. The barrel in the movie looks longer than any picture I've been able to find (75mm??)

Any how, here is a picture or two:

http://data3.primeportal.net/artillery/tim_roberts/sav_m43_105mm/images/sav_m43_105mm_19_of_37.jpg

http://data3.primeportal.net/artillery/tim_roberts/sav_m43_105mm/images/sav_m43_105mm_10_of_37.jpg

Jon

My Blog: The Combat Workshop 

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Western North Carolina
Posted by Tojo72 on Thursday, March 18, 2010 10:16 AM

So then  "What is it ?"

  • Member since
    May 2009
  • From: Hobart, Tasmania
Posted by Konigwolf13 on Thursday, March 18, 2010 9:47 AM

Well since my system also serves as the media server for our HTS here a couple of screenies of said action. Hope it helps

1-just after paratrooper runs out of 30cal and tank rolls in.

just as the sniper starts shoots. Good show of distance and angle

Have fun

Andrew

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Western North Carolina
Posted by Tojo72 on Thursday, March 18, 2010 9:26 AM

The Marder was destroyed by molotov cocktails,i'm pretty sure it was a closed top vehicle that did the bell tower

  • Member since
    August 2006
  • From: Neenah, WI
Posted by HawkeyeHobbies on Thursday, March 18, 2010 8:50 AM

Sure they would, but as a former shooter, if you command the high ground you command the field of battle. Doesn't matter if it is a hill top, mountain, tree or tower. If gives you eyes that give you an advantage.You use that advantage as long as you can keep it. Like when a tank blows up the tower.

Don't forget that the camera distorts in many cases the actual perspective of the situation. A good cameraman can pull a distant object in closer than it actually is. A tank round has to travel a certain distance before the round activates it explosive charge to prevent it from blowing up as it exits the muzzle.

An M203 40mm Grenade launcher round needed to spin 13 revolutions after exiting the muzzle if I remember correctly.

We used to train to climb buildings and water towers when I served on a tactical emergency action team, the AF equivalent of SWAT. The idea was to take out the enemy scout/spotters who fed info to the main force. Or you targeted the Officers and NCOs if the force was within range. In normal non combat operations, you were to remove the threat, whether it was a guy with a gun going berserk or holding a hostage.

Once on a call to respond to a hostage situation, a GI who found out his wife was being unfaithful, I set up using one of the Civil Engineering's power line maintenance bucket trucks. Up in the basket I went. Fortunately the guy surrendered peacefully and without incident. Never had a shot, but it was fun playing with the bucket.

Gerald "Hawkeye" Voigt

http://hawkeyes-squawkbox.com/

 

 

"Its not the workbench that makes the model, it is the modeler at the workbench."

  • Member since
    April 2008
  • From: Philadelphia PA
Posted by smeagol the vile on Thursday, March 18, 2010 8:01 AM

slightly off topic, but I NEVER understood the concept of the sniper in the bell tower.  Im sure that most people would look to the highest point with the best available LOS for the sniper, would it be just putting yourself out in the open, instead of getting in a building with alot of windows?

 

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, March 18, 2010 8:00 AM

I thought it was a Marder that took it out. 

What should bug people even more is that normally these types of vehicles did not fight together.  Despite urban legend and myth, German units were pretty cohesive throughout the war.  Tiger tanks operated in independant heavy tank battalions for the most part with some exceptions in elite divisions at company strength.  Marders, Jagdpanzers and Jagdpanthers operated in tank destroyer battalions and companies as part of a division, or sometimes independant as well...

As I recall, the Marder did seem to be elevating higher than I would have thought possible...

  • Member since
    September 2006
  • From: Central Texas
Posted by NucMedTech on Thursday, March 18, 2010 7:30 AM

The Jagdpanther took the bell tower out, but I think it was further down the street since Parker(the sniper?) was picking off the germans around it. He was the one who noticed the JP aiming at them. Given the correct distance I think the JP could take out the bell tower, we just don't really know how far away the JP was.  

-StephenCowboy

Most barriers to your successes are man made. And most often you are the man who made them. -Frank Tyger

  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Bicester, England
Posted by KJ200 on Thursday, March 18, 2010 7:10 AM

Haven't seen the whole of SPR for a few years, but isn't it the Wespe that takes out the bell tower?

Memory may well be failing me again.

That would be the only one out of the 3 with any chance of achieving that level of elevation with it's main gun.

Just another example of  the magic of Hollywood.

Karl

 

 

 

 

Currently on the bench: AZ Models 1/72 Mig 17PF

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.