Talk:Saving Private Ryan

From Internet Movie Firearms Database - Guns in Movies, TV and Video Games
Jump to: navigation, search

\/ Why are these here? Explosives aren't talk page only last I checked, I thought that was just knives and suchlike. Evil Tim 09:12, 20 April 2011 (CDT)

Contents

Explosives

Sticky Bomb

While planning the defense of Ramelle, Captain Miller comes up with a improvised explosive device he calls a "sticky bomb". It consists of a sock filled with Composition-B explosive with a fuse attached and covered in grease so it sticks where it's placed. Deploying it is a hazardous proposition though; as one soldier is killed when the fuse runs out while he is trying to place it on one of the German tanks, though the bombs do succeed in immobilizing one Tiger tank by destroying its treads. The improvised explosive is apparently inspired by the actual "sticky bomb", the short-lived British No. 74 ST Grenade, which used a purpose-designed super strong resin adhesive instead of axle grease, which was tested and found to be insufficiently sticky. The sticky bomb also had several other problems, not the least of which was a habit of sticking to the soldier using it.

A paratrooper lights a sticky bomb with his Zippo but take too long to attach it and...
...ends up getting blown up by his own sticky bomb.
These two paratroopers fare better and take out a Tiger tank's treads with two of these sticky bombs and render it immobile.

Mk-II No. 75 Hawkins Grenade/Mine

Prior to the climactic battle Cpl. Henderson relays to Cpt. Miller that their arsenal of "spitwads" includes Hawkins mines. Later a 101st Airborne soldier is seen placing one on the main street and camouflaging it.

Although manufactured as a grenade the Mk-II No.75 Hawkins Grenade was utilized more efficiently as an anti-tank/vehicle mine. Partly because its shape and weight made accurate throwing difficult.
A paratrooper brings over a helmet full of Mk-II No. 75 grenade mines to set up on the road.
A paratrooper readies the No. 75 mines detonator by wrapping the arming fuse.
The paratrooper detonates the No. 75 mines....
...which devastates the German infantry. (Even though the explosion is clearly hidden debris jets.)
Cpt. Miller readies the No. 75 mines detonator when they fall back to "The Alamo".
Cpt. Miller looks over at the detonator before trying to retrieve it. Captain Miller is fatally wounded before he can reach it.



I hope everyone likes the completed SPR page. - GM


M1 Garand

Some comments in the article are made about soldiers holding their M1 rifles with one hand. The comments say that the weapons shown are replicas due to their obvious light weight. While I've never held an M1, I have held an M14 with one hand. It is not difficult to hold such a weapon with one hand, especially for brief periods. Axeman 22:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

An M14 is maybe a pound or two lighter (less wood and a little smaller) but Garands are bulky and heavy. They may have been accurate and reliable but they were very cumbersome. For maybe a few seconds you can hold an M1 with one hand but it is terribly uncomfortable and definitely not how someone would hold a Garand comfortably when not reading it. Plus many of those soldiers hold the gun with one hand at an forward tilted angle, which would cause quite some strain on the wrist. (I repeated everything they did with their Garands in the movie and most of it is not that easy) And what I mean to say by lightweigh replicas is that it is likely the extras were using resin replicas that were nice and light but even the main characters had lighter rifles, they were considerably gutted in heavy spots to make them easier to carry. -GM45
Something else I realized he said that is bullshit; 'An m14 is maybe a pound or two lighter'. A GI M14 weighs ~2 pounds more than an M1 garand. It is EASIER to hold an M1 than an M14. M1s are lighter due to being SHORTER and having a much smaller magazine (8 rounds of 30 caliber ammo versus 10-20 rounds of 30 caliber ammo). GM, it appears you have no fucking clue what you're talking about, and I really question if you ever held either of the firearms in question. --Asmkillr323 16:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
An M1 Garand weighs less than 10 pounds. It is not hard to hold 10 pounds in one hand, and if you really think its some sort of feat of strength, you need to go to a gym. --Asmkillr323 13:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Was about to say the same. But if you're happen to be that weak, you should carry something like M1 carbine or a Grease gun. Or sit and fill the blanks in HQ.

Holding the thumb to the offside, as shown in the illustration of Upham firing his Garand, is actually the "proper" way to hold the rifle to AVOID getting hit in the nose by one's own thumb in recoil. While the gas operation of the Garand somewhat tames the recoil impulse, there's still plenty. Also, the stock and upper handguard will protect the hand from being pinched by the reciprocating operating rod, as long as the finger tips are not actually stuck in the gap between the two parts of the stock. Upham shows good form, for a guy who appeared to have no prior experience as a rifleman.

Okay I'll be contentious just for the heck of it. I would argue that in combat with adrenalin blasting through your body you might just be able to hold the M1 Garand with one hand for awhile. Not only would you be having a temporary increase in strength but you probably wouldn't notice the discomfort for awhile. Adrenalin is a weird thing. Many stories from wars of soldiers getting shot and not even realizing it until minutes after the fact.Just thought I would put that at there. --Jcordell 23:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that it's not that far fetched to hold an M1 Garand one handed. I own a Mossberg 500 with a 28" barrel and a Mosin Nagant 91/30. The Mossberg is about 7.5lbs and I do one hand hold reloads, holding the shotgun on target. The Mosin is 8 1/2 lbs and I have no trouble holding it one handed. I'm not a trained soldier, nor a weight lifter. But, it seems to me that a trained soldier should have no problem lifting one more pound than I can.

Actually, the M1 Garand is about 9 to 11 pounds and the M14 is 11.5 pounds. - Kenny99 16:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
While this discussion is relatively dead now, my point at the time was that it's not comfortable to carry the weapon like that. It's not impossible, but the weight is enough that carrying it like that (especially at enough of an angle that the front end would direct the weight forward, giving the wrist more work) would be uncomfortable. That was my reason to assume that some of the rifles were lighter weight props (seeing as some of these are for sale, they were present for filming along with the firing props). As for the M14 info, I fucked up there. It's not hard to correct someone without being a dick about it. Grow up. - Gunmaster45

I can carry my Grandfather's M1 with one hand no problem. But then again I'm a pretty big guy. Everybody be friends. --ardtanker14 16:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Remember, too, that the typical WWII G.I. was about 5'9", 150-160 pounds, or about the size of an American woman today. I'm 6'4", 240, and absolutely cannot easily hold/carry a Garand by gripping it with one hand at the pistol grip. Anyone who did hold the gun like that would carry it with the muzzle up to relieve the strain on the wrist, not horizontally as repeatedly shown in the movie; it's not so much the total weight, as it is having 90% forward of the gripped area. The Garand and M14 are close enough to being the same weight that it wouldn't matter.

Guy Blowing Up

Do we rely need a picture of a guy getting blown up? Frankly, I think it's disgusting and unnecessary. There's really no point, IMO, to have the picture on here. I know we censor nudity (The Whole Nine Yards, for example and I think extremely gory images should go or, if image has a nice shot of the gun, possibly cover the gore with a blck box. Seriously, there's no need for a gratuitous shot of a guy blowing up here. --Mandolin 02:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

- I would say you're being a bit prudish personally (A guy gets blown up and that's sick but all the other images of blood-spraying bullet hits are ok?), but your comment has merit. If the dude got blown up but the image had a good shot of a firearm, that would be one thing I guess, but the point stands that that particular image is indeed unnecessary in terms of the informational value of it's section. StanTheMan 02:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Prude? if the picture wasn't this:

...ends up like this.

I'd agree with you, but the picture is a bit extreme--Mandolin 03:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC).

I'm not saying it isn't. Guess I'm just not as disgusted, I don't know. But it is gruesome, and it is unneeded. I don't agree the content itself warrants removal, but that, plus it's lack of informational contribution does. Graphic detail aside, the guy getting blown up doesn't help the section, in terms of describing the weapon. StanTheMan 03:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually yes it is informative, it shows what happens if you hold the weapon for too long with a lit fuse.Kornflakes89 03:11, 12 April 2011 (CDT)
...ends up getting blown up.

Here's a censored one. Noticed that I removed the meat chunks flying around. - Kenny99 03:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

B.A.R. pronouncing

I'm still trying to understand why some particular gun people would rather spell the acryomn B-A-R, instead of just calling it "BAR". It's abbrieviated like a word that anyone recognize. I don't see why some gun nuts find it semi offensive when someone doesn't "pronounce" it right. It's like if ppl started calling NATO "N.A.T.O." cause it stands for something instead of just one flowing "word" NATO, or NORAD by each letter. I just don't get it Excalibur01 16:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's just how it is. Everyone called it a B.A.R. and Bar just doesn't sound profesional. Personally I find it annoying when people call an A.C.O.G. an Acog, although this is okayed by most people so it's just a pet peeve of mine. - Gunmaster45

Wow you can see the decimal points and dashes in a "pronunciation" of a word" ?? You sir are gifted.

Maybe cos 'bar' is a word and people could think you're refering to a pub or a metal rod, whereas NATO, NORAD and ACOG etc. aren't similar to real words.

How it's pronounced is irrelevant. The site wants to appear professional, so it's best to properly punctuate the abbreviation. Acora 04:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I like to go back on this and ask, why not pronounce the acronym as it is? It is really so wrong? Excalibur01 15:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, because it's not the way it was done. It's an old weapon. Someone back in the twenties decided to spell it out. It may not make sense, but that's the way it is, and we shouldn't change it. Now, if you want to change the way we pronounce a modern weapon like the HK UMP, and just start calling it "ump," then go ahead. As a social experiment, I'd truly like to see how far it goes. --funkychinaman 15:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
BTW, I've heard some of the kids I played WaW with refer to the BAR as a bar (rhymes with car.) These are the same kids who refer to the G43 as the gew-er (rhymes with sewer.) Do the kids playing MW2 refer to the UMP as an ump (rhymes with hump?) --funkychinaman 19:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That just show you that unless your homeschooled in this day and era (like me) or just pretty damn smart (like me), you turn into a damn moron. Kids have become so damn stupid that they think Karabiner sounds like car with an a at the end and beaner. - Kilgore 20:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Internet Argument Phenomena #37 - In 97% of observed cases, when attacking their opponent's spelling, grammar or punctuation, participants in bitchy Internet Arguments will´╗┐ make a blunder of their own. Cause is undetermined, but is suspected to be related to excessive smugness which leads to a lack of care in checking for mistaked. Observations continue. Stickie (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2013 (EDT)

Thompson Submachine Gun

The nickname "Tommy Gun" is derived from either it's use by British troops ("Tommies") early in WWII, or is a reference John T. Thompson, who inspired its development. The M1 and M1A1 were both easier and cheaper to make successors to the earlier M1928 model. The most obvious difference between the earlier M1928 and the two later models was the bolt cocking handle being moved to the side of the later models - it was on top on earlier Thompson versions - and the most obvious visible difference between the M1 and the M1A1 was the protective "ears" around the rear sight of the latter. Late-production M1928s and M1s had just an L-shaped piece of sheetmetal, with the peep sight drilled through it, welded to the top of the receiver.

Um thanks, but why? We all know this information.... MoviePropMaster2008 18:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Then why is differing or contrary information still on the site? Attention is specifically drawn to Upham's holding his Garand with his thumb off to the side, with the comment that it would cause the very problem that holding the rifle that way will prevent. As you can see in the pic of Vin Diesel, wrapping the thumb around the pistol grip is the way to get a big rap on the nose from your own thumb. My comments about the Thompson (other than the Tommy Gun reference, which wasn't really specific to anything), is that the currently posted information says the M1A1 replaced the more expensive/complicated M1, when the M1 was actually the first of the "cheap" Thompsons, with the M1A1 being merely the definitive cheap Thompson. The Blish lock deletion, side cocking knob, fixed sight, smooth barrel, and other mods were already present on the M1.

Then FIX it. I'm sure there are tons of little mistakes all over IMFDB and we can't catch them all. And users are supposed to catch mistakes when they see them. Sure, sometimes there will be 'contention' regarding an edit, but it it's an obvious mistake, then no one will complain. MoviePropMaster2008 22:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

M2 Mortar

I think the opinion on which end of the mortar shell to bang is incorrect. If the mortar shells are time fused (for airburst) the impact on the tail would simulate the high g-forces experienced when firing the shell from the tube. The time element would start burning/turning and then detonate later. If the shells are impact detonated the tail tap would arm the impact fuzing, the next shock would be the shell coming back to earth.

You are correct , mortar roundsare armed when they drop to the bottom of the mortar tube at the instant of firing. The movie is correct, the caption under the pic is wrong. Hitting the nose of the mortar against the base plate as the caption suggest would either do nothing if the fuse is not armed or would cause it to detonate in the guys hand.

Hitting the tail of any mortar will not arm it, it doesn't function by just applying force. The tail section would need a typical pin ignition, there's a spike in the tube that does this. It's a relatively simple concept. Thursday (talk) 04:23, 21 June 2013 (EDT)

The firing pin strikes the tail of the mortar which initiates the propellant charge, it doesn't directly do anything to arm the impact fuse on the warhead. The fuse in mortars like this was armed by setback, which is where a part within the fuse is forced relatively backwards due to inertia when it is launched, hence why striking it hard on a plate can simulate this. In fact I would agree with what the above comment says (unless someone knows something I don't about how this fuse specifically works), in that it is not incorrect that they are striking the base rather than the nose against a hard surface, as this is what would simulate a launch and cause the required setback. --commando552 (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2013 (EDT)

Scope differnces

by the looks of things jackson uses three different scopes in some of the pics, i the scene where he is adjusting his scope for windage the scope clearly has a wider front end , in the stand-off scene where wall colapases he is using one the has a wider back end and a completely round front, and in the bell tower the scope has two vertical bars sticking out of the rifle which arent present in the previous scenes


A big problem I see is the caption under the unertl scope states he s twisting the front objective to adjust the elevation . The front objective is adjustable but just like all other scopes with adjustable objective all he is doing is adjusting the parallax. This adjustment keeps the cross hairs from apearing as if there floating around by properly focusing the scope for the range its being used at. Just because there are distance markings on the part he is turning it has nothing to do with elevation. You can clearly see the elevation and windage knobs, which he does adjust at one point , on the top and side of the rear scope mount.


As far as bullet impact and crosshair relationship at the moment of impact for the bullet, of course they dont match , forgetting the fact that its a movie we're talking about the simple fact that it take some length of time between when the shot is fired and the bullet impacts makes this a reality and historicly accurate. Simply put when you pull the trigger on any gun there is a delay before the bullet impacts your target , during this time the gun has begun to recoil, muscles contarct etc and the sights will not be pointed at the same object as they were at the moment of firing, simple physics. [panaceabeachbum]

Prop Guns

I almost bought a prop gun used in this movie from a guy with around 20-30 of them at a gun show about 7 years ago-S&Wshooter 04:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say none but MPM can be MPM, but we could always use more screen-used guns.-protoAuthor

Inaccuracy

My teacher showed us the begining of this movie in History when we started our WW1 unit! You would think that a US history teacher would know that D-Day didn't occur in WW1-S&Wshooter 01:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered that your teacher was showing you that part of the movie becasue it demonstrates what is involved when the infantry does a frontal assault against troops that are in heavily fortified positions? He might not have been able to find a WWI movie that recreated a frontal assault as effectively. Just an idea. --Jcordell 23:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Back when I was in college, we watched the end of Gallipoli for a demonstration of WWI tactics. Paths of Glory and All Quiet on the Western Front would've worked too. --funkychinaman 10:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My 7th grade history teacher was the dumbest bastard I've ever seen. He didn't even know the difference between World War I and World War II. He also called Vietnam Soldiers "Baby Killers". I got suspended later when I beat him up for saying that. Just show you that school teachers are stupid. - Kilgore 22:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The mini-series ANZACS, starring Paul Hogan, is also another good source of recreated WW1 battles. Don't watch the stripped down movie version. You have to watch the full mini-series (nearly 10 hours long) to appreciate the story and attention to period detail. Does ANZACS have it's own page? If not, it deserves one. It was one of the first war movies/series where strict attention to detail with regard to weapons, uniforms, tactics, vehicles, etc, was used. Also The Light Horsemen is a good example of the fighting in Palestine later in WW1. Other movies to consider are All The King's Men and Lawrence of Arabia.

Helmet Throwing

I watched this again for old times sake, and I had to laugh at the scene where Horvath and a German both have rifle jams, so what else could they do but pitch their helmets at each other and go for their sidearms? Unnecessary, but anything to stop your enemy from killing you I guess. M14fanboy

I remember another movie, I think it was set in Vietnam, where a guy bludgeoned someone with his helmet. And Horvath only threw his because he was pissed the German threw his first. --Funkychinaman 18:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it was platoon when the soldier killed someone with his helmet71.59.54.184 19:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

We Were Soldiers had a character to beat NVA soldier to death with his helmet, when the stranded platoon was engaged in close quarters combat at night. --AlkoTanko 08:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitely We Were Soldiers, I don't even remember a part in Platoon where anyone uses a helmet as a weapon.Kornflakes89 03:25, 12 April 2011 (CDT)

Funkychinaman, the movie you're referring to is Hamburger Hill. --[User:BigD]] 17:30, 6, June 2011

The Pacific

Is The Pacific a spin off of this movie?

Band of Brothers was sort of a spin off, in that in involved a lot of the production people. And those same people did the Pacific.--Funkychinaman 18:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Funnily enough, SPR is the only one in this discussion NOT based entirely on real events.-protoAuthor 23:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Color Saturation

The movie itself has a purposeful 60% reduction in color saturation, giving it that bleached and washed out look, this is present in many of the screenshots, but some others have the regular color levels associated with some TV broadcasts of the film which are due to complaints about color problems from television owners unfamiliar with the look of the film. I was just wondering which color level is the preferred for this page?

I.E. : This shot, with seemingly corrected color.

Cpt. Miller with his Thompson at the ready.

As opposed to this shot, from my copy of the movie, with the washed out bleached look.

SPRcolortest.jpg

--Toadvine 07:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it is suppose to look desaturated and old. It was done to give it that look of old film style. Also, when you place a picture from this movie that is "corrected color", it just doesn't look right. - Kilgore 22:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

original pic

This was the original pic that Gunmaster uploaded, it has even more grain than yours, Toadvine. I'm not sure if Ben41 color corrected his new image or got it off Blu-Ray. --Predator20 22:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Current pic with decreased saturation.

I just think the "corrected" colors looks over colored. I think somebody should upload some pictures that are better colored then the actual movie colors, but are not over colored like Ben41's uploaded pics. I wish I had a DVD of Saving Private Ryan (I've got it on VHS) - Kilgore 18:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The Color saturated NEW PICS are TOO saturated. They even look more color saturated than other regular Modern Color movies (see the Ed Burns pic). This really makes the Screenshots look even LESS like the stylized look of the original FILM. I vote to keep 'some' color saturation' but DIAL IT BACK a bunch. Split the difference between the original Desaturated look and the new super saturated look. MoviePropMaster2008 20:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of the movies Ben41 screencaps had a similar effect, too. I'll try to remove some of his pics and put it back to its original quality. - Kenny99 03:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Steven Spielberg make the color of his movies this way on purpose. Example: War of the Worlds has and unusual color to it to give the supernatural, extraterrestrial feeling. Schindlers List is Black and white so people get that dark, sad feeling to the movie.--Gunner5

SS Got Issued More Lugers?

I'm curious as to who posted the comment about pictorial evidence suggesting the SS got more Lugers than the Wehrmacht, and what your source is for that? The Wehrmacht controlled procurement, which put the SS at the bottom of the chain for new weapons, espescially in the beginning of the war. That's why they ended up with so much foreign equipment, like the ZB-26 LMG and the Radom and Hi Power pistols. Almost all of the German produced Radoms and Hi Powers went to the SS so I doubt very much they'd have more Lugers than the regular army. More pistols maybe, but because they were getting the non-German ones I doubt Lugers. - Nyles

Remember that the army adopted the P38, so it makes sense to have older handguns in the SS. Markost 21:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The SS also got all the money from running the concentration camps, which included whatever money they can make from harvesting raw materials (by which I mean gold teeth, jewelry, hair, etc) and contracting out the labor. This allowed them to get a lot of stuff the army didn't get, or got later, like camo, because they actually owned or operated the factories. Small arms were probably included. I'm not saying whether or not the were or were not first in line to get Lugers, I'm just saying they probably could have if that's what they wanted. --funkychinaman 22:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
In fact, non-standard weapons come mostly in the foreign SS units - Balkan, Baltic, Ukrainian, Russian, Belarussian and other entities in which the Germans were in the minority. German Waffen-SS units (1,2,3,5,9,10,17 SS Division) received a standard weapon, the same as the Wehrmacht.Flexo 22:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Arming Mortars by Banging

Is it really inaccurate that they are banging them on the base to arm them? The arming process occurs when the projectile is launched from the tube and the arming mechanism senses a sudden acceleration. Hitting the base should make the round think it was launched, and activate the detonation fuse in the nose which is sensitive to the sudden deceleration of impacting something. Banging it on the nose would provide a deceleration force, which would set it off if already armed, but in theory do nothing if it was still safed.207.98.198.136 02:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

A (retired) USMC mortarman on a Mythbusters forum told me the method depicted is correct: Hitting the base arms them. The scene is not a goof. -- Maxman (talk) 00:43 06 November 2013 (EST)

M1 Carbine

In the Neuville scene, I saw a paratrooper with a full stock M1 Carbine. I don't know how to screencap but it's at the part where Jackson is creeping around the car to get to a position to kill the sniper. The paratrooper is leaning against a wall. --ardtanker14 23:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Here you go: - Kenny99 13:53, 23 December 2011 (CST)

A U.S. paratrooper taking cover behind a wall with his M1 Carbine during the sniper ambush. Note that it would be more accurate for this paratrooper to be seen with an M1A1 Carbine, a variant of the M1 Carbine that features a folding stock and is commonly issued to paratroopers.

Fake Tigers

The Tigers in this movie are actually built on T-34/85s. You can tell in some shots because they don't have interleaved roadwheels and the turrets are too far forward (or rather the engine deck is too long compared to the rest of the tank), but they're very good fakes. The Marder III Ausf. H, Marder III Ausf. M, Shermans, M5 halftrack and Kettenkrad halftrack-motorcycle are all real. The Hanomag (Sd.Kfz.251 Ausf.D, the German halftrack) is a postwar Czech chassis with the roof cut off; it's missing the external hull stowage compartments of a real 251, and has all-steel treads with no rubber pads for travelling on road. Evil Tim 04:47, 4 July 2011 (CDT)

You Sir are correct. Too bad this is Guns in Movies and not Tanks in Movies ;) Dudster32 13:03, 29 August 2011 (CDT)
We do military vehicle IDs as well, especially if they're one vehicle dressed as another. See Rambo III, for example. Another little trivia note; the radar bunker seems to be a Mammut, the world's first phased-array radar. Probably built for the production, I don't think any have been preserved and if they had I doubt they'd be willing to rip a hole in it for a movie. Evil Tim 20:48, 27 September 2011 (CDT)

M1 Garand mechanical mockup? Airsoft?

Hey all! I've been wondering about the M1 Garand Mellish uses in one scene in the Normandy Invasion sequence. More specifically the scene featured in the photo below.

Mellish and Carparzo watching the entrance of a bunker.

When Mellish fires his Garand it looks odd. Specifically it looks like the bolt-handle moves very VERY slowly. When a real garand is fired the bolt-handle move so swiftly you can barely see it because its so fast. Second: There is practically zero gunsmoke coming from the chamber. Even with blanks there should have been at least SOME smoke. There is also almost no recoil whatsoever. So based on those observations I have to ask if Mellishes Garand in this scene was a sort of mechanical special effects weapon that, for safety issues due to the very short distance between the actors gun and the german extras, simulated a real gun: blast (maybe propane), brass ejection and bolt-handle movement. Dudster32 07:01, 29 August 2011 (CDT)

If it was a flashpaper Garand, would the bolt handle be moving at all? --Funkychinaman 09:05, 29 August 2011 (CDT)
Well thats my point: If the bolt-handle didnt move because of a gunpowder explosion from a blank cartridge, then that blowback would have had to be mechanical or maybe pneumatical. Dudster32 09:45, 29 August 2011 (CDT)
| Found it on Youtube. Is it ejecting casings as well? Weird. --Funkychinaman 10:02, 29 August 2011 (CDT)
Yeh exactly! There you can see how the bolt-handle moves extremely slow in comparison to live or even blank round firing. No gunsmoke or anything.
It wouldn't be impossible to build a mockup, but still mechanical weapon capable to display flash, bolt-movement and even casing-ejection, for safety reasons. Even if you are firing a blank at someone there is always a risk there might be some foreign material being propelled by the blanks gasses to such high velocity thus making a penetration on the person being fired at. Normally when firing blanks the actors fire away from the target as to minimize the risk. If this M1 garand is a mockup like I'm speculating then the risk would be extremely minimal and it would allow the actors to fire straight at their target, in this case two extras portraying german soldiers. Dudster32 12:59, 29 August 2011 (CDT)
So what do you veterans think? Is it a genuine M1 Garand in the scene displayed above? Dudster32 14:53, 30 August 2011 (CDT)

Guys! I stumbled upon a youtube vid showing a M1 Garand airsoft rifle: "Marushin M1 Garand Video Review - RedWolf Airsoft - RWTV " Note how it behaves like Mellishes M1 Garand in the movie, minus the case ejector and muzzle flash. Dudster32 09:39, 12 September 2011 (CDT)

Faulty scope

Subsection "1.4.1 Faulty Scope" states the following: "During the bell tower sequence, Jackson's Unertl scope appears to be very off from where the bullets hit, likely because he didn't zero it when switching it with his other scope."

There's nothing in the film to suggest what the Jackson character did or didn't do to the scope. In addition, each shot's landing is irregular. Even if the scope wasn't zeroed, we could still expect placement to be consistent relative to the reticle. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to attribute this phenomenon to filmmaker's error, rather than an unsubstantiated back-story? Armandthecorsair

That section's always bothered me too. Yes, it's an error in the film, but it's got nothing to do with the weapon Jackson's using. It's clearly a result of the filming technique. I'm guessing they just filmed the shots normally and simply super-imposed the crosshairs onto the footage in post-production, without bothering to centre the image on where the bullets actually hit. I keep wanting to change the article to reflect that, but obviously the page is locked.--Leigh Burne 07:54, 25 May 2012 (CDT)
Actually, every time I watch the scene, it seems to me he's simply missing. -- Maxman (talk) 00:49 06 November 2013 (EST)

MG 42

The correct german spelling is: "Maschinengewehr". Original naming by the Heereswaffenamt was "Universal-Maschinengewehr Modell 42". The caliber is 7,92x57mm wich was known as 8x57IS (Infantrie spitz). The term "8mm Mauser" is not commonly used nor was it commonly used in the Wehrmacht.

8mm Mauser is a common American name for the cartridge, and the site generally defaults to US terminology (same with using NATO designations for Soviet hardware, for example). Evil Tim 21:36, 7 November 2011 (CST)

Why are other weapons like the Karabiner 98k and their ammunitions described correctly while this must have a branch expression from post war private business manufacturers?

It's only in brackets to identify another common name for that cartridge in the US. It's not like it doesn't also have the full name. Also, sign your comment with four tildes (~~~~) Evil Tim 01:12, 8 November 2011 (CST)
I like the changes you've made
Oh, you're not supposed to copy the "nowiki" tags. Those are usurp because if I didn't use them it would just sign my list again. Evil Tim 15:18, 8 November 2011 (CST)

MG34 machine gun

Can someone add the section below to the machine gun section on the Saving Private Ryan page now that Ben41 locked it down?

The Tiger tanks (in reality, mocked-up T-34/85s) in the movie are seen with a hull-mounted MG34s.

A Tiger tank with a hull-mounted MG34 (circled in red).
Since the Tiger was a mocked up T-34, could it be a fake barrel to mimic an MG-34? --Maxman (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2014 (EDT)

Caps from special features

I finally went through all the special features on the second disc of the 60th anniversary edition that I bought years ago. --Funkychinaman 19:52, 14 July 2012 (CDT)

The AKs might have been used to provide muzzle flashes or just for sound effects, I guess. Paintball guns might be to cue actors in the boat to react? I doubt they'd sound right for ricochets. Evil Tim (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2014 (EDT)
As for the AK's, they look like the stocks are being removed. Do they resemble the folding stock for the MP40? I believe that sometimes paintballs fill with dust are used to simulate ricochets. --Ben41 (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2014 (EDT)
I believe the stock for the original AKM was derived from the folding stock of the MP40. And I think the paintball guns were for sound effects. --Funkychinaman (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2014 (EDT)
Although they are similar in shape and concept, the construction and way they work is different enough that I am fairly sure you would never be able to get them to interchange, to the point where I think it would be easier to build one from scratch. Also, there is nothing about this picture that suggests they are doing anything to the stocks, all they have done is strip them down. The parts on the table are just the top cover and the recoil spring assembly, and although these so have to be taken off to remove the stock this is a hell of an assumption. The part that is curiously absent though are the bolt carrier groups, which are absent on all of the guns yet are not on the table. Might be that these are put somewhere more secure so that the guns are not operational, and they are just stored unassembled like this so that they do not have to do the job twice. As to why AKs are here at all I have no idea. i doubt it would be anything to do with muzzle flashed or sound, as these will be added digitally after the fact so I don't know why they would have to actually be on set, or why they would need to many. I'm unfamiliar with the context of this special feature, is this actually on set? If not it could just be where the armourer stores his weapons and these are just other things in his inventory. If this is on set, I have no idea. Maybe familiarisation and training? If the armourer had 500 blank fire Garands I don't see the point, as its not like thy were in short supply on set and they are very different weapons to operate. --commando552 (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2014 (EDT)
Barry Pepper demonstrating how to shoot with a sling. I don't remember him doing it in the film though. Note the M1911 stuck in his pants.
The actors fire their weapons towards the sea. This was from the boot camp featurette.
Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks talk in front of an M33 dual .50 cal AA mount on Omaha Beach.
The faux Tiger test fires its "gun" before the scene where it blows apart the building behind Ryan. Notice how there is no recoil or concussion blast.
The Irish extras, some with modern shades, are issued their plastic-wrapped M1s. The M1s appear to be rubber, given how easily they're being handled. There were 750 extras, 250 of which had blank firing weapons, the rest with rubber replicas.
A Flak 38 overlooking the Omaha Beach set. Possibly the same one that was used in the final battle sequence.
Armorer Simon Atherton.
A table of M1 Garands. According to Atherton, he prepared two thousand weapons, five hundred of which were blank firing, 1500 of which were rubber replicas.
Whoa, where did THOSE come from?
Some SMGs.
These weapons have seen better days. Atherton said much time had to be devoted to cleaning and repairing the weapons after exposure to the salt water and sand.
Atherton himself unloading an M1 Garand.
One of the armorers reassembling an M1 Garand.
An extra or actor tries to shake out the sand from his rifle grenade so he can attach it to the rifle.
Crew members fire paintballs at a Higgins boat. For sound effects maybe?
Another angle for the scene where Miller's men clear a bunker with a flamethrower. Since the scene was filmed from a low angle, the firemen and the pads were not visible. The black smoke overhead is from fires on the beach lit for that purpose.
The scene where the flame thrower blows up from another angle. That jet coming in from the left is actually propane, designed to enhance the exploding gas tank on the flamethrower.

Fake Omaha Beach

The actual fortifications at Omaha Beach were nothing like the ones depicted in the movie. For whatever reason, there are two Leitstands overlooking the beach. There weren't any Leitstands at Omaha Beach, there were just fortifications. The beach was also much longer, about three football fields long.

The Omaha Beach scene was filmed in Ireland on Curracloe Beach in Ballinesker, County Wexford. -- Maxman (talk) 00:53 06 November 2013 (EST)

Panzerschreck faulty shield

If you look at the first image of the German with the Panzerschreck, you can see that the shield has slipped around on its mount, it's no longer in line with the launcher's pistol grip/sights. Yet in the next shot it's vertical again. I'd add something mentioning this, but, obviously, the page is locked.--Leigh Burne (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2013 (EST)

I added the note. --Funkychinaman (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2013 (EST)

Request to add link for actor's name

It's just a little thing, but could somebody with access to the editing function for this page, make a small revision in the section for the M1 Flamethrower? The actor playing Doyle is Glenn Wrage and currently there's no brackets around his name to make a link to his actor page (like Glenn Wrage). Thanks in advance, --PeeWee055 (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2013 (EST)

Done. --commando552 (talk) 05:01, 31 January 2013 (EST)

Lyman Super TargetSpot scope

The Springfield 1903's scope shown as "Unertl scope" in the movie is a pre or post-war Lyman Super TargetSpot (undefined power). That's identifiable thanks to the objective which is different than Unertl scopes.

Lyman Super TargetSpot :

Lyman sts objective.JPG

Unertl :

Unertl objective.jpg

The 1903 A4 are never used with these models.

Request to add a link to the FLAK 38

Can you please add a link to the Flak 38 page? Looks like the page is locked so I cannot do it. -hchris

M1919A4 belts

The 1919 in the tower uses a disintigrating belt, and Mellish and Henderson's uses a fabric belt. The description reflects this and has done so for three years, but the image captions refer to them as if they were one gun using different belts in a continuity error when they are clearly two seperate guns in different locations. -- Maxman (talk) 00:58 06 November 2013 (EST)

M1 Flamethrower on Omaha Beach?

I thought it was a little strange to see US soldiers carrying flamethrowers on Omaha Beach. Would they have been issued flamethrowers for the invasion? I thought the US used flamethrowers mainly in the Pacific Theater, not the European. And I heard that it is impossible for a flamethrower fuel tank to explode when hit, being that the chemicals in both tanks have to mix in order to become flammable.

The purpose remains the same, for clearing out bunkers and fortifications. And if you look above, there's a cap from the special features showing how they enhanced the explosion with a jet of propane. --Funkychinaman (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2014 (EST)
  • There is an excellent series of militaria magazines (English translations available); some published in book form by the late French journalist Yves Debay. He interviewed many veterans for his works and came across lots of interesting facts. His work on D-Day said with the invasion of Normandy flamethrowers were issued to members of assault teams but none were known to be used; they probably were jettisoned when the troops landed in deep water.

http://www.cpj.org/2013/01/military-correspondent-yves-debay-killed-in-aleppo.php https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yves_Debay Foofbun (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2014 (EST)

The chemicals in the tanks don't need to mix, it's just gas/napalm in one tank and compressed air/nitrogen in the other. Fuel and propellant. It's only ignited when either a pilot light or igniter cartridge in the nozzle ignites the gasoline. Shooting the tank probably won't detonate the gas unless you're using tracer or incendiary rounds, but the pressurized gas venting will probably knock you down. And while flamethrowers were mostly used in the Pacific, the D-Day landings offered flamethrowers good targets in the bunkers and trenchlines. Being clumsy, bulky, and generally a pain, they got very little use since, as Foofbun mentioned, the troops wound up in deep water.--Mandolin (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2014 (EST)

Excessive Information

The descriptions of several entries are rather excessive. Particularly glaring is the Luger entry, considering it only appears on-screen (barely) for a few seconds. And regarding the MG-42, I believe the term "Hitler's buzzsaw" is a post-war term. --Maxman (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2016 (EDT)

Some of it may be a bit much, but for the most part I don't mind some extra info, as long as it is accurate and pertinent. Many other pages have such 'excessive' info on them and they aren't seen as a problem - In many cases they help their respective pages. But it can go overboard. In any event, it might have been nice to await hearing some other thoughts on the matter before removing said details, though - Especially if you were gonna make a note of it here in the discussion page. StanTheMan (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2016 (EDT)
It seemed cleaner than it was before at least. I have no objections to the information clean-up. The Luger one was indeed quite long. Inceptor57 (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2016 (EDT)

No 75 mine

Why is the no 75 grenade/mine not on the front page? It definitely qualifies for inclusion on this page? Can someone please change this?--Hchris (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2017 (EDT)

Panzerfaust

Never seen in the movie, but you can hear some Germans mention Panzerfausts during the final battle sequence.

It is when the paratrooper is hiding in a house, wiring up the detonator, while Germans pass by the window. The translation is "Bring up the panzerfaust, and move up with the second company!" But no Panzerfausts are seen in the movie. Theakker3 (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2019 (EDT)

Walther P38

It says the pistol that the SS Panzergrenadier uses to wound Horvath is a Luger P08. But, upon closer inspection, I am pretty sure that it is a Walther P38. Theakker3 (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2019 (EDT)

Walther P38 WWII dated with black grips - 9x19mm
SPR WaltherP381.jpeg
SPR WaltherP38 2.jpg
SPR WaltherP38 3.jpg
SPR WaltherP38 4.jpg



Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Categories
Special
Social Media
Toolbox