Saving Private Ryan - this has been bugging me

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

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.  

-Stephen

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...

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?

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.

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

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

So then  "What is it ?"

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

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!! 

Ethan

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!! 

Ethan

and why?

gary

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".

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!! 

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.

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!! 

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

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.

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

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.

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!! 

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...

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. 

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.

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.

bbrowniii

Hey Ethan

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

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. 

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

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.

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

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

Wirraway

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

Psst!  It's a movie.

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!

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 !!

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

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

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....