Saving Private Ryan
Jimi Tubman
things that other people have posted :-
1) The P51 vrs Tank thread - I watched with baited breath to see the Mustang
shoot up the tank but I failed to see any bullets actaully hit it!! If the
pilot used his guns then he must have been a bloody good shot as none of the
bullets actually missed the rear of the tank!! IMHO, the tank was taken out
by a bomb carried under the wings of the P51.
2) Kevin Costner aka German Sniper - even with Mr Costner's rapidly
receeding hairline, I couldnt be certain that the sniper was indeed him. The
only guy of note that I saw (apart from the main actors) was a guy who
looked and sounded like Ted 'Cheers' Danson playing the paras Lt. Is this
true??
Jimi :)
jam...@cfw.com
"Jimi Tubman" <ji...@tubman.valiant.co.uk> wrote:
>
> 2) Kevin Costner aka German Sniper - even with Mr Costner's rapidly
> receeding hairline, I couldnt be certain that the sniper was indeed him. The
> only guy of note that I saw (apart from the main actors) was a guy who
> looked and sounded like Ted 'Cheers' Danson playing the paras Lt. Is this
> true??
>
James Graham
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Jon Cohen
Also-IMHO-was not a bomb-was a rocket. The have been several threads on that
here.
--
______________________________________________
Jon
To reply, use my link below.
Jon...@Bigfoot.com
ICQ # 948660
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."
Mark Twain
"Just because someone can buy a computer and plug it into the wall doesn't
mean that they themselves are wired up right." - JMS
DanWalsh
Regarding the P-51...I couldn't tell if they were trying to portray bombs or
strafing. The thing I kept thinking was how Tom Hanks character wasn't blown
to bits by the tank's shrapnel as it disintegrated.
Dan Walsh
J. Sproat
>2) Kevin Costner aka German Sniper - even with Mr Costner's rapidly
>receeding hairline, I couldnt be certain that the sniper was indeed him.
You know, I never even looked closely at the German sniper. I will next
time.
The
>only guy of note that I saw (apart from the main actors) was a guy who
>looked and sounded like Ted 'Cheers' Danson playing the paras Lt. Is this
>true??
Yup, it sure was Ted Danson, and the Ranger Colonel was played by Dennis
Farina, who was the star of Police Story and Buddy Faro.
Jay
Fiach MacHugh
|
attack on the bridge?
casita
movies too.
J. Sproat <35DIVM
casita
Fiach MacHugh wrote in message ...
>|Right! It was
Lenny Warren
Dan Ford wrote:
>
> This was, I thought, the most overrated film of the decade. Did
> he who made Schlinder's List make thee?
Yep! I thought they were both great, thought provoking films!
> veterans of Anzio, at a minimum. They cross fields all bunched
> up.
You got to remember the constraints of movie-making!! Remember, this is still a film,
if it were real army life it would probably be bit boring, with a bit of fear and
adrenalin at the end! It's got to get to the mass market, not us military-experts!
;-)
> didn't matter, because Captain kept blasting away with it without
> every reloading, like the magical Irish porridge pot that was
> never empty.
I seem to remember him changing mags!
> My impression is that Steven Spielberg suddenly realized that war
> is a dangerous activity, and got a little overexcited in the
> effort to spread the news.
I still think it's a great movie! Treat it as a movie, not a nit picking exercise for
Militaria buffs! :-)
Catch you later,
Lenny...
Lenny Warren, Strathaven, Scotland.
e-mail: lwa...@zetnet.co.uk
www: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/lwarren/
Rob Davis
> last round in his clip (boing!) and shouts: "I'm out! Anybody got
> a bandolier?"
I can't help thinking that you super-specialist guys go into a
film with the wrong intention. You see a bandolier with the
wrong colour polish on it and you think, "Yah, this ain't the
real McCoy, I'm leaving." You are only interested in seeing the
"mistakes" to provide a platform for your specialist knowledge.
Sure I noticed three Hurricanes and the rest Spitfires in the
Polish Squadron sequence (and the up-and-over garage door!) in
THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN. Sure I saw the aircrew whistle on the
"wrong" lapel in PIECE OF CAKE. But I don't expect
non-specialists to get it 100% right, and I enjoyed these films /
TV series as entertainment.
As a Bomber Command specialist I noticed plenty of holes in THE
DAM BUSTERS and suchlike films, even with knowledge gleaned from
this excellent NG, I noticed little things "wrong" with SPR. But
I enjoyed the film, and found it emotionally moving and thought
provoking ("Hell, if it was _me_ in that Landing Craft, I'd be
looking for a clean pair of trousers"). I wasn't desperately
worried about the "wrong" mark of grenade, the "wrong" type of
tank, the "wrong" usage of P51s.
Come on now!? Can't you see the film and enjoy it as cinema, a
visual story? SPR isn't about the Army. It's a movie. And, if
you look at what Spielberg got _right_, it's a bloody good movie.
Rob Davis MSc MIAP
Anstey, Leicester UK. 0976 379489
abuse@localhost, postmaster@localhost
Dan Hartung
<6vmklb$g...@dgs.dgsys.com>...
> My impression is that Steven Spielberg suddenly realized that war
> is a dangerous activity, and got a little overexcited in the
> effort to spread the news.
Well, you're welcome to your opinion, but speaking as someone who
has never been in the armed forces, let alone combat, I have today
a deeper understanding of the veterans of WWII than I did before
watching the movie.
<sarcasm on>
But I guess that's not the point. The point is whether or not the guns
use the same kinds of ammunition, or not. My mistake.
<sarcasm off>
TSBench
>This was, I thought, the most overrated film of the decade. Did
>he who made Schlinder's List make thee?
>
>Two constant irritants:
>
>1) Here's a squad comanded by a captain and a sergeant who are
>veterans of Anzio, at a minimum. They cross fields all bunched
>up.>>>>
They cross fields all bunched up because that is the field of view of the
camera. It's a movie, not a training film. Surprisingly, one of the real
continuity screwups in the movie happened in this scene, and it appears you
missed it.
2) In that squad are Garands, one Tommy gun, a BAR, one carbine
>(why didn't the sergeant throw away that pissant carbine when the
>Garand guys got shot?>>>>
Ummm, a sergeant carrying a weapon developed to be carried by officers and
NCOs. Must have been a continuity screwup. On the other hand, the M1 carbine
was one of the most popular infantry weapons of the war.
<<< but no, they stick the good rifle muzzle down into the dirt to mark the
spot),>>>
Standard practice.
<<<< a Springfield sniper rifle,
>and two Colt pistols. That's three kinds ammo,>>>
Standard practice.
<<< but I reckon it
>didn't matter, because Captain kept blasting away with it without
>every reloading, like the magical Irish porridge pot that was
>never empty.>>>>
In a movie? The devil you say! Heck, you should have walked out right then and
there.
>>>>But I didn't walk out until one of the Garand guys fires off the
>last round in his clip (boing!) and shouts: "I'm out! Anybody got
>a bandolier?"
>
>A bandolier?>>>
En-bloc'd ammunition was packed and issued in cloth bandoleers. Would you have
found it more realistics if he had yelled "Hey, anybody got any spare bullets?"
Chances are the guy in question assumed he's be needing more than one or two
cartridges and, since spare ammunition was carried in bandoleers, he asked for
one.
<<<<>My impression is that Steven Spielberg suddenly realized that war
>is a dangerous activity, and got a little overexcited in the
>effort to spread the news.
>
>- Dan>>>>
My impression is that you spent so much time mistakingly picking the fly sh*t
out of the pepper that you missed the movie. Of course, YMMV.
Regards,
TSB
Bill Walker...Producer and Cohost of The Shooting Bench radio
program....General Manager, WDIS-Radio, Norfolk, Massachusetts.
Paul Bradford
> This was, I thought, the most overrated film of the decade. Did
> he who made Schlinder's List make thee?
I agree that other than the first thirty minutes, this is much
like other WW2 movies, not very realistic.
But the first thirty minutes are worth the price of admission.
> Two constant irritants:
>
> 1) Here's a squad comanded by a captain and a sergeant who are
> veterans of Anzio, at a minimum. They cross fields all bunched
> up.
I watched it a second time after hearing of this complaint.
They do bunch up in the close-ups (how else could they show
any conversation?), but the the few long-range shots, they are much
farther apart. How far apart is far enough?
Paul
Tham Chun Fai
with the SS scout half-track. It must have been his bazooka that
disabled it because neither Hanks' men or Damon's trio had other
heavy weapons.
Dan Ford (d...@christa.unh.edu) wrote:
: x-no-archive: yes
: This was, I thought, the most overrated film of the decade. Did
: he who made Schlinder's List make thee?
: Two constant irritants:
: 1) Here's a squad comanded by a captain and a sergeant who are
: veterans of Anzio, at a minimum. They cross fields all bunched
: up.
: 2) In that squad are Garands, one Tommy gun, a BAR, one carbine
: (why didn't the sergeant throw away that pissant carbine when the
: Garand guys got shot? but no, they stick the good rifle muzzle
: down into the dirt to mark the spot), a Springfield sniper rifle,
: and two Colt pistols. That's three kinds ammo, but I reckon it
: didn't matter, because Captain kept blasting away with it without
: every reloading, like the magical Irish porridge pot that was
: never empty.
: But I didn't walk out until one of the Garand guys fires off the
: last round in his clip (boing!) and shouts: "I'm out! Anybody got
: a bandolier?"
: A bandolier?
: My impression is that Steven Spielberg suddenly realized that war
Joe Garibaldi
Dan Ford wrote in message <6vmklb$g...@dgs.dgsys.com>...
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>This was, I thought, the most overrated film of the decade. Did
>he who made Schlinder's List make thee?
>
>Two constant irritants:
(noting many factual inconsistencies) <snipped>
MAy I suggest you spare yourself the aggravation and never again go to a
theatrical fiction movie and only view documentaries with live footage such
as on TLC, Discovery, the History Channel etc... other wise you will forever
waste $$$ and get an ulcer....
Gerard
> 1) [snip]They cross fields all bunched up.
I looked for this in my second viewing. Yes, they appeared bunched up but
at other times them seemed spread out. Cinematic licence if you please.
> 2) (why didn't the sergeant throw away that pissant carbine when the
> Garand guys got shot?
Ummm. You did mention that those guys were at Anzio together, so I'll let
his experience carry it from there. That is his preference.
> but no, they stick the good rifle muzzle down into the dirt to mark the
> spot),
standard practice, along with perhaps hanging the helmet (and perhaps
something else that would identify who was buried).
> a Springfield sniper rifle, and two Colt pistols. That's three kinds
> ammo, but I reckon it didn't matter, because Captain kept blasting away
> with it without every reloading, like the magical Irish porridge pot
> that was never empty.
Didn't Capt. Miller change magazines? Uh, didn't you notice what is on
these guys' shoulders, they were Rangers which meant they had a wider
range of weaponry. Also remember that they were in the first wave so
being a bit overloaded would make some sense. Could I add that those guys
were vets from other battles?
> But I didn't walk out until one of the Garand guys fires off the last
> round in his clip (boing!)
When Garand's run out of ammo, the clip ejects with a load metallic bang.
> and shouts: "I'm out! Anybody got a bandolier?"
>
> A bandolier?
Either for the .30 cal or for the Garand, clips/bullets are carried in
such.
> My impression is that Steven Spielberg suddenly realized that war is a
> dangerous activity, and got a little overexcited in the effort to spread
> the news.
My impression is that when people on this NG bring up Speilberg's name it
is to nitpick him not the movie. Personally, I hold no opinion about the
man nor care enough to speculate as to his motives.
BTW- If you are a serious nitpicker on Rangers, their equipment and such;
you could start with a bit of research. I recommend, "We Led the Way" by
William O. Darby (their founder) with a co-author and "The Spearheaders"
by James Altieri, who was a former company commander of the Rangers.
Clantons
> I can't help thinking that you super-specialist guys go into a
> film with the wrong intention. You see a bandolier with the
> wrong colour polish on it and you think, "Yah, this ain't the
> real McCoy, I'm leaving." You are only interested in seeing the
> "mistakes" to provide a platform for your specialist knowledge.
I don't claim to be a "super-specialist", but who would polish a
cloth bandolier, and why?
Bob
Richard Becker
good stuff snipped...
>
> BTW- If you are a serious nitpicker on Rangers, their equipment and such;
> you could start with a bit of research. I recommend, "We Led the Way" by
> William O. Darby (their founder) with a co-author and "The Spearheaders"
> by James Altieri, who was a former company commander of the Rangers.
>
I always thought US Army Rangers traced their origins back to
Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain boys from the American Revolution...
rgds,
TSBench
In article <707nak$13e6$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>, Richard Becker
<rbeck...@sprintmail.com> writes:
<< I always thought US Army Rangers traced their origins back to
Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain boys from the American Revolution...
rgds, >>
Goes back to Rogers's Rangers of the F&I War. In fact, Rogers's Rules for
Rangers are still part of the Rangers' written tradition.
Gerard
> > Richard Becker <rbeck...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> > I always thought US Army Rangers traced their origins back to
> > Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain boys from the American Revolution...
> Dan Ford <d...@christa.unh.edu> wrote:
> Earlier! "Ranging companies" were mustered in New England and
> perhaps elsewhere during the French & Indian Wars.
> > >tsb...@aol.com
> > >Goes back to Rogers's Rangers of the F&I War. In fact, Rogers's Rules for
> > >Rangers are still part of the Rangers' written tradition.
Well we should really make a distinction here. Darby makes the point that
HIS Rangers (WWII) came from the "tradition" of Rogers' Rangers.
"The World War II American Rangers were born in June 1942, General George
C. Marshall, chief of staff of the United Sates Army, had visited the
British Commando Training Depot and upon returning home directed the
creation of the new American Rangers. It was he who adopted the name
"Rangers," after the famous band led by Maj. Robert Rogers against the
French and Indians during that period of our prerevolutionary history.
Rogers' Rangers had been famous for hit-and-run raids into enemy country.
This, in Gernal Marshall's eyes, was to be one of the main tasks of the
new Rangers, thus giving the men experience for the greater battles to
come. In addition, they were to be trained in amphibious warfare and were
to operate with the British Commandos."
Darby, William O., Baumer, William H. "We Led the Way." pg. 25
It should be further noted that on several occassions Darby reminds the
reader how some of his missions, for example, the capture of Cisterna were
consistent with the traditions of Rogers' Rangers.
Ranger-like practices I am sure preceded Rogers' Rangers. Rogers (if I
remember the documentary special) was the first North American colonial to
codify some type of fighting doctrine (which today as TSbench says is part
of the modern and WWII Rangers). Modern day Rangers (75th) would probably
trace their "regimental" roots to the WWII Rangers' experience and British
Commando-based training, but, as far as what I have read, it seems like
their present training (and hence their more evolved esprit) is probably a
mixture of what was developed at the JFK school, recent combat experience
and experience from other WWII scout-type units (Alamo Scouts, UDT and
such).
Jon Cohen
http://www.Thedropzone.com covers them, the AB and the glider troopers. I
think there are links in there as well to other sites.
Cunninghams
the subject, shouldn't those really have been P-47s or Typhoons if they were
"tank busters" as described?
G. Malcolm Cunningham
Jon Cohen
Check threads on SPR for info.