Talk:Saving Private Ryan

Explosives

Sticky Bomb

While planning the defense of Ramelle, Captain Miller comes up with a unimprovised 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

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)

...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)

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.

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)

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.

--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)

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)

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)