Discussion:
Dirty Dozen chat
(too old to reply)
SNORKY
2005-04-26 02:03:23 UTC
Permalink
Just saw the end of it on WGN. Still a great movie.

The question I have is this: in the scene where they toss the
"unpulled" grenades down the shaft, would a "pulled" grenade later
tossed in really have that much affect on the "unpulled" grenades
already down there? I'm thinking they would supply additional
shrapnel, but wouldn't explode. (In the movie, they caused a huge
explosion.)

Am I right?
James Schrumpf
2005-04-26 02:43:05 UTC
Permalink
How do you prefer your martini, Mr. SNORKY <***@snorky.zz>? Shaken, or
stirred?
Post by SNORKY
Just saw the end of it on WGN. Still a great movie.
The question I have is this: in the scene where they toss the
"unpulled" grenades down the shaft, would a "pulled" grenade later
tossed in really have that much affect on the "unpulled" grenades
already down there? I'm thinking they would supply additional
shrapnel, but wouldn't explode. (In the movie, they caused a huge
explosion.)
Am I right?
If you recall, the ventilator pipes had grates on the bottom so the
grenades would have piled up on top of each other.

Still, I agree that it's a tossup that the explosion of one grenade would
set off the explosive inside the steel jackets of the other grenades.

Perhaps one of the vets who have experience with such things could comment?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net

Well, look. I mean, is he gonna be able to chase us? Cause if I woke up
lookin' like that, I would just run towards the nearest living thing and
kill it.
-- Master Shake
d***@aol.com
2005-04-26 03:09:49 UTC
Permalink
Shaken, or
Post by James Schrumpf
stirred?
Post by SNORKY
Just saw the end of it on WGN. Still a great movie.
The question I have is this: in the scene where they toss the
"unpulled" grenades down the shaft, would a "pulled" grenade later
tossed in really have that much affect on the "unpulled" grenades
already down there? I'm thinking they would supply additional
shrapnel, but wouldn't explode. (In the movie, they caused a huge
explosion.)
Am I right?
If you recall, the ventilator pipes had grates on the bottom so the
grenades would have piled up on top of each other.
Still, I agree that it's a tossup that the explosion of one grenade would
set off the explosive inside the steel jackets of the other grenades.
Perhaps one of the vets who have experience with such things could comment?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by James Schrumpf
James Schrumpf
http://www.hilltopper.net
Grenades have pretty small explosions. I don't think they'd set
others off.
SNORKY
2005-04-26 03:52:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Grenades have pretty small explosions. I don't think they'd set
others off.
Even right on top of each other?
Bryan S. Slick
2005-04-26 04:13:49 UTC
Permalink
[***@aol.com (***@aol.com)]
[25 Apr 2005 20:09:49 -0700]

: Grenades have pretty small explosions. I don't think they'd set
:others off.

Pretty small as compared to what, Bill?
--
Bryan S. Slick, onyx_hokie at yahoo dot com

"There ain't nothing wrong a few cold beers can't iron out
in fact, you tell me just when and where, and I'll buy the first round"

[Terri Clark, "I Think The World Needs a Drink"]
d***@aol.com
2005-04-26 10:28:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan S. Slick
[25 Apr 2005 20:09:49 -0700]
: Grenades have pretty small explosions. I don't think they'd set
:others off.
Pretty small as compared to what, Bill?
--
Bryan S. Slick, onyx_hokie at yahoo dot com
As compared to what is shown on tv and movies? As compared to a stick
of dynamite? Not that one couldn't ruin your whole day.
Bryan S. Slick
2005-04-26 18:12:41 UTC
Permalink
[***@aol.com (***@aol.com)]
[26 Apr 2005 03:28:16 -0700]

:> : Grenades have pretty small explosions. I don't think they'd set
:> :others off.
:>
:> Pretty small as compared to what, Bill?

: As compared to what is shown on tv and movies? As compared to a stick
:of dynamite? Not that one couldn't ruin your whole day.

I believe I may safely infer from your posting that you've not actually
seen a live grenade explode. The blast is *large*.
--
Bryan S. Slick, onyx_hokie at yahoo dot com

"There ain't nothing wrong a few cold beers can't iron out
in fact, you tell me just when and where, and I'll buy the first round"

[Terri Clark, "I Think The World Needs a Drink"]
Ralph Kennedy
2005-04-26 18:27:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan S. Slick
:> : Grenades have pretty small explosions. I don't think they'd set
:> :others off.
:>
:> Pretty small as compared to what, Bill?
: As compared to what is shown on tv and movies? As compared to a stick
:of dynamite? Not that one couldn't ruin your whole day.
I believe I may safely infer from your posting that you've not actually
seen a live grenade explode. The blast is *large*.
Still, its purpose is to wound with shrapnel
rather than to actually blow things up, no? So
how large could it be if blowing things up isn't
its primary purpose? And how could one soldier
save his comrades by falling on a grenade if the
blast was all that large?

Sorry for commenting, but Charles gave all
us non-military types carte blanche this morning.

--Ralph Kennedy {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
^---------------The Wrong Choice
internet: ***@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
Ike
2005-04-26 18:49:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph Kennedy
Post by Bryan S. Slick
:> : Grenades have pretty small explosions. I don't think they'd set
:> :others off.
:>
:> Pretty small as compared to what, Bill?
: As compared to what is shown on tv and movies? As compared to a stick
:of dynamite? Not that one couldn't ruin your whole day.
I believe I may safely infer from your posting that you've not actually
seen a live grenade explode. The blast is *large*.
Still, its purpose is to wound with shrapnel
rather than to actually blow things up, no? So
how large could it be if blowing things up isn't
its primary purpose? And how could one soldier
save his comrades by falling on a grenade if the
blast was all that large?
Sorry for commenting, but Charles gave all
us non-military types carte blanche this morning.
I believe all Brian is saying is that the blast is definitely large
enough to set off other grenades in a close proximity. It is the
concussion, not the flame/smoke/schrapnel.
--
**********************
"Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real
sports. . . all others are children's games ."
--Ernest Hemingway

**********************
d***@aol.com
2005-04-26 18:55:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ike
Post by Ralph Kennedy
Post by Bryan S. Slick
:> : Grenades have pretty small explosions. I don't think they'd set
:> :others off.
:>
:> Pretty small as compared to what, Bill?
: As compared to what is shown on tv and movies? As compared to a stick
:of dynamite? Not that one couldn't ruin your whole day.
I believe I may safely infer from your posting that you've not actually
seen a live grenade explode. The blast is *large*.
Still, its purpose is to wound with shrapnel
rather than to actually blow things up, no? So
how large could it be if blowing things up isn't
its primary purpose? And how could one soldier
save his comrades by falling on a grenade if the
blast was all that large?
Sorry for commenting, but Charles gave all
us non-military types carte blanche this morning.
I believe all Brian is saying is that the blast is definitely large
enough to set off other grenades in a close proximity. It is the
concussion, not the flame/smoke/schrapnel.
--
How sensitive are the fuses on grenades? They are made to withstand a
fair amount of rough handling and abuse. (It would take a moran to toss
one around, but....)
d***@gmail.com
2005-04-26 19:21:14 UTC
Permalink
This may be beside the point, but no one mentioned yet that as Lee
Marvin and Charles Bronson got to the bottom of the stairwell leading
to the bomb shelters, there were numerous "rauchen verboten" signs. If
we're just talking about grenades causing that explosion, would the
grenades + gas just have to be large enough to trigger whatever it was
you were verboten to rauchen around?


Dave H
Ike
2005-04-26 19:40:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Enright
Post by Ike
Post by Ralph Kennedy
Post by Bryan S. Slick
:> : Grenades have pretty small explosions. I don't think they'd
set
Post by Ike
Post by Ralph Kennedy
Post by Bryan S. Slick
:> :others off.
:>
:> Pretty small as compared to what, Bill?
: As compared to what is shown on tv and movies? As compared to a
stick
Post by Ike
Post by Ralph Kennedy
Post by Bryan S. Slick
:of dynamite? Not that one couldn't ruin your whole day.
I believe I may safely infer from your posting that you've not
actually
Post by Ike
Post by Ralph Kennedy
Post by Bryan S. Slick
seen a live grenade explode. The blast is *large*.
Still, its purpose is to wound with shrapnel
rather than to actually blow things up, no? So
how large could it be if blowing things up isn't
its primary purpose? And how could one soldier
save his comrades by falling on a grenade if the
blast was all that large?
Sorry for commenting, but Charles gave all
us non-military types carte blanche this morning.
I believe all Brian is saying is that the blast is definitely large
enough to set off other grenades in a close proximity. It is the
concussion, not the flame/smoke/schrapnel.
--
How sensitive are the fuses on grenades? They are made to withstand a
fair amount of rough handling and abuse.
True- I guess the difference being between rough handling and the
concussion of an explosion.

But I do remember somewhere of reading where even some grenades were not
assembled with detonators until needed.

"The grenade's detonator was not inserted in the handle until needed.
The handle had to be unscrewed from the head to do this."


http://www.wlhoward.com/id540.htm
Post by Tom Enright
(It would take a moran to toss
one around, but....)
True-

Interesting thing I found on all this discussion. Something I completely
overlooked- there were "offensive" and "defensive" style grenades. One
with more blast and one with more fragmentation.


"Handgrenades
The terms offensive and defensive hand grenades were introduced by the
French in WWI and adopted by the US. Offensive grenades are blast
grenades with little fragmentation. The idea is that they are used in
the attack when friendlies are exposed and intended to attack bunkers,
pillboxes, etc. The blast effect is ideal for fortifications and reduce
the fragmentation hazard to exposed friendly troops. Offensive grenades
are used in the defense when the friendlies are in protected positions
and the enemy in the open. Defensive grenades rely on fragmentation
effect. They are actually outdated terms of little use today, although
the US Army still uses the terms. In reality in combat a soldier with
use what ever type of grenade is available for ever purpose he needs it
for. In WWII the standard US defensive grenade was the Mk II and Mk IIA1
"pineapple" and the offensive grenade was the Mk IIIA1 and Mk IIA2
"concussion" grenades."


http://www.wlhoward.com/id540.htm
--
**********************
"Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real
sports. . . all others are children's games ."
--Ernest Hemingway

**********************
Ralph Kennedy
2005-04-26 20:23:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ike
I believe all Brian is saying is that the blast is definitely large
enough to set off other grenades in a close proximity. It is the
concussion, not the flame/smoke/schrapnel.
Heh. Well since you spelled his name wrong,
you might soon get the chance to find out
empirically just how large a grenade blast is.

--Ralph Kennedy {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
^---------------The Wrong Choice
internet: ***@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
Ike
2005-04-27 16:33:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph Kennedy
Post by Ike
I believe all Brian is saying is that the blast is definitely large
enough to set off other grenades in a close proximity. It is the
concussion, not the flame/smoke/schrapnel.
Heh. Well since you spelled his name wrong,
you might soon get the chance to find out
empirically just how large a grenade blast is.
Yeesh!

That's what a graveyard shifter gets for posting in the afternoon.

Sorry, Bria---

BRYAN!
--
**********************
"Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real
sports. . . all others are children's games ."
--Ernest Hemingway

**********************
Bryan S. Slick
2005-04-26 23:48:07 UTC
Permalink
[Ike (***@SHAEF.NET)]
[Tue, 26 Apr 2005 18:49:01 GMT]

:Ralph Kennedy wrote:
:
:> Bryan S. Slick <***@yahoo.com> writes:
:>
:>>[***@aol.com (***@aol.com)]
:>>
:>>:> : Grenades have pretty small explosions. I don't think they'd set
:>>:> :others off.
:>>:>
:>>:> Pretty small as compared to what, Bill?
:>>
:>>: As compared to what is shown on tv and movies? As compared to a stick
:>>:of dynamite? Not that one couldn't ruin your whole day.
:>>
:>>I believe I may safely infer from your posting that you've not actually
:>>seen a live grenade explode. The blast is *large*.
:>
:>
:> Still, its purpose is to wound with shrapnel
:> rather than to actually blow things up, no? So
:> how large could it be if blowing things up isn't
:> its primary purpose? And how could one soldier
:> save his comrades by falling on a grenade if the
:> blast was all that large?
:>
:> Sorry for commenting, but Charles gave all
:> us non-military types carte blanche this morning.
:
:I believe all Brian is saying is that the blast is definitely large
:enough to set off other grenades in a close proximity. It is the
:concussion, not the flame/smoke/schrapnel.

Exactly, Yke.
--
Bryan S. Slick, onyx_hokie at yahoo dot com

"There ain't nothing wrong a few cold beers can't iron out
in fact, you tell me just when and where, and I'll buy the first round"

[Terri Clark, "I Think The World Needs a Drink"]
Ike
2005-04-27 16:35:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan S. Slick
[Tue, 26 Apr 2005 18:49:01 GMT]
:>
:>>
:>>:> : Grenades have pretty small explosions. I don't think they'd set
:>>:> :others off.
:>>:>
:>>:> Pretty small as compared to what, Bill?
:>>
:>>: As compared to what is shown on tv and movies? As compared to a stick
:>>:of dynamite? Not that one couldn't ruin your whole day.
:>>
:>>I believe I may safely infer from your posting that you've not actually
:>>seen a live grenade explode. The blast is *large*.
:>
:>
:> Still, its purpose is to wound with shrapnel
:> rather than to actually blow things up, no? So
:> how large could it be if blowing things up isn't
:> its primary purpose? And how could one soldier
:> save his comrades by falling on a grenade if the
:> blast was all that large?
:>
:> Sorry for commenting, but Charles gave all
:> us non-military types carte blanche this morning.
:I believe all Brian is saying is that the blast is definitely large
:enough to set off other grenades in a close proximity. It is the
:concussion, not the flame/smoke/schrapnel.
Exactly, Yke.
Heh.
--
**********************
"Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real
sports. . . all others are children's games ."
--Ernest Hemingway

**********************
Bryan S. Slick
2005-04-26 23:47:46 UTC
Permalink
[Ralph Kennedy (***@asuvax.eas.asu.edu)]
[Tue, 26 Apr 2005 18:27:27 GMT]

:Bryan S. Slick <***@yahoo.com> writes:
:> [***@aol.com (***@aol.com)]
:>
:> :> : Grenades have pretty small explosions. I don't think they'd set
:> :> :others off.
:> :>
:> :> Pretty small as compared to what, Bill?
:>
:> : As compared to what is shown on tv and movies? As compared to a stick
:> :of dynamite? Not that one couldn't ruin your whole day.
:>
:> I believe I may safely infer from your posting that you've not actually
:> seen a live grenade explode. The blast is *large*.
:
: Still, its purpose is to wound with shrapnel
:rather than to actually blow things up, no? So
:how large could it be if blowing things up isn't
:its primary purpose? And how could one soldier
:save his comrades by falling on a grenade if the
:blast was all that large?
:
: Sorry for commenting, but Charles gave all
:us non-military types carte blanche this morning.

The answer to the second is easy. If you stick your finger in the end
of a 9mm, the firing of it will fuck your finger up, but won't do nearly
as much damage to you as it would if it hit your hand from three feet
away.

Having actually seen many grenade explosions, I would estimate the
actual size of the blast at 5ft radius. The kill radius from shrapnel
is much larger than that.
--
Bryan S. Slick, onyx_hokie at yahoo dot com

"There ain't nothing wrong a few cold beers can't iron out
in fact, you tell me just when and where, and I'll buy the first round"

[Terri Clark, "I Think The World Needs a Drink"]
d***@aol.com
2005-04-26 18:49:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan S. Slick
[26 Apr 2005 03:28:16 -0700]
:> : Grenades have pretty small explosions. I don't think they'd set
:> :others off.
:>
:> Pretty small as compared to what, Bill?
: As compared to what is shown on tv and movies? As compared to a stick
:of dynamite? Not that one couldn't ruin your whole day.
I believe I may safely infer from your posting that you've not
actually
Post by Bryan S. Slick
seen a live grenade explode. The blast is *large*.
--
Bryan S. Slick, onyx_hokie at yahoo dot com
Yes, I have. I guess the term "large" is relative to how near you are
to the explosion. Remember, we're talking about the WW2 pineapple with
only 2 oz or so of TNT. Modern grenades are much more powerful.
Bryan S. Slick
2005-04-26 23:49:11 UTC
Permalink
[***@aol.com (***@aol.com)]
[26 Apr 2005 11:49:05 -0700]

:
:Bryan S. Slick wrote:
:> [***@aol.com (***@aol.com)]
:> [26 Apr 2005 03:28:16 -0700]
:>
:> :> : Grenades have pretty small explosions. I don't think they'd set
:> :> :others off.
:> :>
:> :> Pretty small as compared to what, Bill?
:>
:> : As compared to what is shown on tv and movies? As compared to a
:stick
:> :of dynamite? Not that one couldn't ruin your whole day.
:>
:> I believe I may safely infer from your posting that you've not
:actually
:> seen a live grenade explode. The blast is *large*.

: Yes, I have. I guess the term "large" is relative to how near you are
:to the explosion. Remember, we're talking about the WW2 pineapple with
:only 2 oz or so of TNT. Modern grenades are much more powerful.

True enough.
--
Bryan S. Slick, onyx_hokie at yahoo dot com

"There ain't nothing wrong a few cold beers can't iron out
in fact, you tell me just when and where, and I'll buy the first round"

[Terri Clark, "I Think The World Needs a Drink"]
d***@aol.com
2005-04-26 10:35:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan S. Slick
[25 Apr 2005 20:09:49 -0700]
: Grenades have pretty small explosions. I don't think they'd set
:others off.
Pretty small as compared to what, Bill?
--
Bryan S. Slick, onyx_hokie at yahoo dot com
Compared to these?


http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/articles/military_photos_20054261.asp
I am Jack's utter apathy
2005-04-26 15:16:45 UTC
Permalink
Remind me to send "" a red cap and a speedo...
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Bryan S. Slick
[25 Apr 2005 20:09:49 -0700]
: Grenades have pretty small explosions. I don't think they'd set
:others off.
Pretty small as compared to what, Bill?
--
Bryan S. Slick, onyx_hokie at yahoo dot com
Compared to these?
http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/articles/military_photos_20054261.asp
No, I think you meant compared to this:

http://tinyurl.com/8ful6
--
TO
Turn those machines back on! TURN THOSE MACHINES BACK OOONNN!!
Andrew Smith
2005-04-26 12:43:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan S. Slick
[25 Apr 2005 20:09:49 -0700]
: Grenades have pretty small explosions. I don't think they'd set
:others off.
Pretty small as compared to what, Bill?
glapski

a.
Tom Enright
2005-04-26 03:18:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by SNORKY
Just saw the end of it on WGN. Still a great movie.
The question I have is this: in the scene where they toss the
"unpulled" grenades down the shaft, would a "pulled" grenade later
tossed in really have that much affect on the "unpulled" grenades
already down there? I'm thinking they would supply additional
shrapnel, but wouldn't explode. (In the movie, they caused a huge
explosion.)
Am I right?
Don't forget about the gas. Ya gotta remember the gas.

Mega-huge kudos to the studio for having a real live German
WWII halftrack in working condition.

-Tom Enright
Pauli G
2005-04-26 12:30:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
Just saw the end of it on WGN. Still a great movie.
The question I have is this: in the scene where they toss the
"unpulled" grenades down the shaft, would a "pulled" grenade later
tossed in really have that much affect on the "unpulled" grenades
already down there? I'm thinking they would supply additional
shrapnel, but wouldn't explode. (In the movie, they caused a huge
explosion.)
Am I right?
Don't forget about the gas. Ya gotta remember the gas.
Mega-huge kudos to the studio for having a real live German
WWII halftrack in working condition.
-Tom Enright
That's right. Nothing worse than having a "Tiger" tank being a Sherman
or a Patton with German crosses painted on them. Of course, the
strangest looking Tiger tanks have to be the ones in Kelly's Heroes.
Ike
2005-04-26 14:25:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
Just saw the end of it on WGN. Still a great movie.
The question I have is this: in the scene where they toss the
"unpulled" grenades down the shaft, would a "pulled" grenade later
tossed in really have that much affect on the "unpulled" grenades
already down there? I'm thinking they would supply additional
shrapnel, but wouldn't explode. (In the movie, they caused a huge
explosion.)
Am I right?
Don't forget about the gas. Ya gotta remember the gas.
Mega-huge kudos to the studio for having a real live German
WWII halftrack in working condition.
-Tom Enright
That's right. Nothing worse than having a "Tiger" tank being a Sherman
or a Patton with German crosses painted on them. Of course, the
strangest looking Tiger tanks have to be the ones in Kelly's Heroes.
Well, at least they had Shermans.

The idiotic "Battle of the Bulge" was another travesty in equipment
realism, and the movie "Patton" of course.
--
**********************
"Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real
sports. . . all others are children's games ."
--Ernest Hemingway

**********************
Tom Enright
2005-04-26 14:47:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Don't forget about the gas. Ya gotta remember the gas.
Mega-huge kudos to the studio for having a real live German
WWII halftrack in working condition.
-Tom Enright
That's right. Nothing worse than having a "Tiger" tank
being a Sherman or a Patton with German crosses painted
on them. Of course, the strangest looking Tiger tanks
have to be the ones in Kelly's Heroes.
Usually Pattons. The "Battle Of The Bulge" IIRC, used the
Spanish army's M48s.

The Tigers in "Kelly's Heroes", like those in "Saving Private
Ryan" were made from Soviet T34/85s. I give them credit for
actually bothering to make it look like a real Tiger, right
down to the Zimmert paste and air filtration system.

Can't fake the tracks/wheels though, from "Saving Private
Ryan":

Loading Image...

A real T34, notice the tracks and wheels:

Loading Image...

A real Tiger:

Loading Image...
Loading Image...

-Tom Enright
cardboard
2005-04-26 15:37:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
Just saw the end of it on WGN. Still a great movie.
The question I have is this: in the scene where they toss the
"unpulled" grenades down the shaft, would a "pulled" grenade later
tossed in really have that much affect on the "unpulled" grenades
already down there? I'm thinking they would supply additional
shrapnel, but wouldn't explode. (In the movie, they caused a huge
explosion.)
Am I right?
Don't forget about the gas. Ya gotta remember the gas.
Mega-huge kudos to the studio for having a real live German
WWII halftrack in working condition.
-Tom Enright
That's right. Nothing worse than having a "Tiger" tank being a Sherman
or a Patton with German crosses painted on them. Of course, the
strangest looking Tiger tanks have to be the ones in Kelly's Heroes.
And Corsairs flying about during the battle of Midway.

And don't forget TV shows like Rat Patrol, which seemingly forgot to
include the 1.5 ton Chevrolet, the vehicle most valued by the LRDG.
Pauli G
2005-04-26 15:50:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
Just saw the end of it on WGN. Still a great movie.
The question I have is this: in the scene where they toss the
"unpulled" grenades down the shaft, would a "pulled" grenade
later
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
tossed in really have that much affect on the "unpulled"
grenades
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
already down there? I'm thinking they would supply additional
shrapnel, but wouldn't explode. (In the movie, they caused a
huge
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
explosion.)
Am I right?
Don't forget about the gas. Ya gotta remember the gas.
Mega-huge kudos to the studio for having a real live German
WWII halftrack in working condition.
-Tom Enright
That's right. Nothing worse than having a "Tiger" tank being a
Sherman
Post by Pauli G
or a Patton with German crosses painted on them. Of course, the
strangest looking Tiger tanks have to be the ones in Kelly's
Heroes.
Post by Pauli G
And Corsairs flying about during the battle of Midway.
In which film/TV series? I know that the movie Midway didn't have
Corsairs.
cardboard
2005-04-27 03:18:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
Just saw the end of it on WGN. Still a great movie.
The question I have is this: in the scene where they toss the
"unpulled" grenades down the shaft, would a "pulled" grenade
later
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
tossed in really have that much affect on the "unpulled"
grenades
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
already down there? I'm thinking they would supply
additional
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
shrapnel, but wouldn't explode. (In the movie, they caused a
huge
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
explosion.)
Am I right?
Don't forget about the gas. Ya gotta remember the gas.
Mega-huge kudos to the studio for having a real live German
WWII halftrack in working condition.
-Tom Enright
That's right. Nothing worse than having a "Tiger" tank being a
Sherman
Post by Pauli G
or a Patton with German crosses painted on them. Of course, the
strangest looking Tiger tanks have to be the ones in Kelly's
Heroes.
Post by Pauli G
And Corsairs flying about during the battle of Midway.
In which film/TV series? I know that the movie Midway didn't have
Corsairs.
I haven't seen it in a while but I'm pretty sure that's the movie
with the Corsair.

Didn't the Battle of Midway movie also have a Heinkel He-111 in one
of the air combat shots?
xyzzy
2005-04-27 15:16:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
Just saw the end of it on WGN. Still a great movie.
The question I have is this: in the scene where they toss the
"unpulled" grenades down the shaft, would a "pulled" grenade
later
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
tossed in really have that much affect on the "unpulled"
grenades
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
already down there? I'm thinking they would supply
additional
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
shrapnel, but wouldn't explode. (In the movie, they caused a
huge
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
explosion.)
Am I right?
Don't forget about the gas. Ya gotta remember the gas.
Mega-huge kudos to the studio for having a real live German
WWII halftrack in working condition.
-Tom Enright
That's right. Nothing worse than having a "Tiger" tank being a
Sherman
Post by Pauli G
or a Patton with German crosses painted on them. Of course, the
strangest looking Tiger tanks have to be the ones in Kelly's
Heroes.
Post by Pauli G
And Corsairs flying about during the battle of Midway.
In which film/TV series? I know that the movie Midway didn't have
Corsairs.
I haven't seen it in a while but I'm pretty sure that's the movie
with the Corsair.
Didn't the Battle of Midway movie also have a Heinkel He-111 in one
of the air combat shots?
Dude. It's hard enough finding enough working warbirds of any kind to
make a movie with. If you demand total authenticity be prepared to
spend $millions or forget it. It's probably the same with tanks,
half-tracks, etc.
cardboard
2005-04-27 15:33:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
Just saw the end of it on WGN. Still a great movie.
The question I have is this: in the scene where they toss the
"unpulled" grenades down the shaft, would a "pulled" grenade
later
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
tossed in really have that much affect on the "unpulled"
grenades
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
already down there? I'm thinking they would supply
additional
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
shrapnel, but wouldn't explode. (In the movie, they caused a
huge
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
explosion.)
Am I right?
Don't forget about the gas. Ya gotta remember the gas.
Mega-huge kudos to the studio for having a real live German
WWII halftrack in working condition.
-Tom Enright
That's right. Nothing worse than having a "Tiger" tank being a
Sherman
Post by Pauli G
or a Patton with German crosses painted on them. Of course, the
strangest looking Tiger tanks have to be the ones in Kelly's
Heroes.
Post by Pauli G
And Corsairs flying about during the battle of Midway.
In which film/TV series? I know that the movie Midway didn't have
Corsairs.
I haven't seen it in a while but I'm pretty sure that's the movie
with the Corsair.
Didn't the Battle of Midway movie also have a Heinkel He-111 in one
of the air combat shots?
Dude. It's hard enough finding enough working warbirds of any kind to
make a movie with. If you demand total authenticity be prepared to
spend $millions or forget it. It's probably the same with tanks,
half-tracks, etc.
Yeah but an He-111? Even if they thought it represented a G4 'Nell',
are
we to assume it took off from a carrier? From what I understand, some
of
the distant shots of the air combat in Battle of Midway was lifted from
the Battle of Britain movie.


Of course even worst is Saving Private Ryan, when the American sniper
has an Unertl scope on his '03 Springfield. That scope was exclusively
used by the Marines in the Pacific. While I can tolerate the odd
Hinkel flying around Midway, seeing an Unertl Scope being used in
the ETO completely destroys the movie.
Pauli G
2005-04-27 15:41:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
Just saw the end of it on WGN. Still a great movie.
The question I have is this: in the scene where they toss the
"unpulled" grenades down the shaft, would a "pulled" grenade
later
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
tossed in really have that much affect on the "unpulled"
grenades
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
already down there? I'm thinking they would supply
additional
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
shrapnel, but wouldn't explode. (In the movie, they caused a
huge
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
explosion.)
Am I right?
Don't forget about the gas. Ya gotta remember the gas.
Mega-huge kudos to the studio for having a real live German
WWII halftrack in working condition.
-Tom Enright
That's right. Nothing worse than having a "Tiger" tank being a
Sherman
Post by Pauli G
or a Patton with German crosses painted on them. Of course, the
strangest looking Tiger tanks have to be the ones in Kelly's
Heroes.
Post by Pauli G
And Corsairs flying about during the battle of Midway.
In which film/TV series? I know that the movie Midway didn't have
Corsairs.
I haven't seen it in a while but I'm pretty sure that's the movie
with the Corsair.
Didn't the Battle of Midway movie also have a Heinkel He-111 in one
of the air combat shots?
Dude. It's hard enough finding enough working warbirds of any kind
to
Post by xyzzy
make a movie with. If you demand total authenticity be prepared to
spend $millions or forget it. It's probably the same with tanks,
half-tracks, etc.
Yeah but an He-111? Even if they thought it represented a G4 'Nell',
are
we to assume it took off from a carrier? From what I understand, some
of
the distant shots of the air combat in Battle of Midway was lifted from
the Battle of Britain movie.
Of course even worst is Saving Private Ryan, when the American sniper
has an Unertl scope on his '03 Springfield. That scope was
exclusively
Post by cardboard
used by the Marines in the Pacific. While I can tolerate the odd
Hinkel flying around Midway, seeing an Unertl Scope being used in
the ETO completely destroys the movie.
now you're just being silly.
xyzzy
2005-04-27 16:11:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
Just saw the end of it on WGN. Still a great movie.
The question I have is this: in the scene where they toss the
"unpulled" grenades down the shaft, would a "pulled" grenade
later
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
tossed in really have that much affect on the "unpulled"
grenades
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
already down there? I'm thinking they would supply
additional
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
shrapnel, but wouldn't explode. (In the movie, they caused a
huge
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
explosion.)
Am I right?
Don't forget about the gas. Ya gotta remember the gas.
Mega-huge kudos to the studio for having a real live German
WWII halftrack in working condition.
-Tom Enright
That's right. Nothing worse than having a "Tiger" tank being a
Sherman
Post by Pauli G
or a Patton with German crosses painted on them. Of course, the
strangest looking Tiger tanks have to be the ones in Kelly's
Heroes.
Post by Pauli G
And Corsairs flying about during the battle of Midway.
In which film/TV series? I know that the movie Midway didn't have
Corsairs.
I haven't seen it in a while but I'm pretty sure that's the movie
with the Corsair.
Didn't the Battle of Midway movie also have a Heinkel He-111 in one
of the air combat shots?
Dude. It's hard enough finding enough working warbirds of any kind
to
Post by xyzzy
make a movie with. If you demand total authenticity be prepared to
spend $millions or forget it. It's probably the same with tanks,
half-tracks, etc.
Yeah but an He-111? Even if they thought it represented a G4 'Nell',
are
we to assume it took off from a carrier? From what I understand, some
of
the distant shots of the air combat in Battle of Midway was lifted from
the Battle of Britain movie.
Of course even worst is Saving Private Ryan, when the American sniper
has an Unertl scope on his '03 Springfield. That scope was exclusively
used by the Marines in the Pacific. While I can tolerate the odd
Hinkel flying around Midway, seeing an Unertl Scope being used in
the ETO completely destroys the movie.
Yeah, that totally fucking ruined that movie for me, too.
Ike
2005-04-27 16:37:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
Just saw the end of it on WGN. Still a great movie.
The question I have is this: in the scene where they toss the
"unpulled" grenades down the shaft, would a "pulled" grenade
later
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
tossed in really have that much affect on the "unpulled"
grenades
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
already down there? I'm thinking they would supply
additional
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
shrapnel, but wouldn't explode. (In the movie, they caused a
huge
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
explosion.)
Am I right?
Don't forget about the gas. Ya gotta remember the gas.
Mega-huge kudos to the studio for having a real live German
WWII halftrack in working condition.
-Tom Enright
That's right. Nothing worse than having a "Tiger" tank being a
Sherman
Post by Pauli G
or a Patton with German crosses painted on them. Of course, the
strangest looking Tiger tanks have to be the ones in Kelly's
Heroes.
Post by Pauli G
And Corsairs flying about during the battle of Midway.
In which film/TV series? I know that the movie Midway didn't have
Corsairs.
I haven't seen it in a while but I'm pretty sure that's the movie
with the Corsair.
Didn't the Battle of Midway movie also have a Heinkel He-111 in one
of the air combat shots?
Dude. It's hard enough finding enough working warbirds of any kind
to
Post by xyzzy
make a movie with. If you demand total authenticity be prepared to
spend $millions or forget it. It's probably the same with tanks,
half-tracks, etc.
Yeah but an He-111? Even if they thought it represented a G4 'Nell',
are
we to assume it took off from a carrier? From what I understand, some
of
the distant shots of the air combat in Battle of Midway was lifted from
the Battle of Britain movie.
Of course even worst is Saving Private Ryan, when the American sniper
has an Unertl scope on his '03 Springfield. That scope was exclusively
used by the Marines in the Pacific. While I can tolerate the odd
Hinkel flying around Midway, seeing an Unertl Scope being used in
the ETO completely destroys the movie.
Someone pickier than me!

I feel your pain.
--
**********************
"Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real
sports. . . all others are children's games ."
--Ernest Hemingway

**********************
cardboard
2005-04-28 04:33:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
Just saw the end of it on WGN. Still a great movie.
The question I have is this: in the scene where they toss the
"unpulled" grenades down the shaft, would a "pulled" grenade
later
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
tossed in really have that much affect on the "unpulled"
grenades
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
already down there? I'm thinking they would supply
additional
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
shrapnel, but wouldn't explode. (In the movie, they caused a
huge
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
explosion.)
Am I right?
Don't forget about the gas. Ya gotta remember the gas.
Mega-huge kudos to the studio for having a real live German
WWII halftrack in working condition.
-Tom Enright
That's right. Nothing worse than having a "Tiger" tank being a
Sherman
Post by Pauli G
or a Patton with German crosses painted on them. Of course, the
strangest looking Tiger tanks have to be the ones in Kelly's
Heroes.
Post by Pauli G
And Corsairs flying about during the battle of Midway.
In which film/TV series? I know that the movie Midway didn't have
Corsairs.
I haven't seen it in a while but I'm pretty sure that's the movie
with the Corsair.
Didn't the Battle of Midway movie also have a Heinkel He-111 in one
of the air combat shots?
Dude. It's hard enough finding enough working warbirds of any kind
to
Post by xyzzy
make a movie with. If you demand total authenticity be prepared to
spend $millions or forget it. It's probably the same with tanks,
half-tracks, etc.
Yeah but an He-111? Even if they thought it represented a G4 'Nell',
are
we to assume it took off from a carrier? From what I understand, some
of
the distant shots of the air combat in Battle of Midway was lifted from
the Battle of Britain movie.
Of course even worst is Saving Private Ryan, when the American sniper
has an Unertl scope on his '03 Springfield. That scope was
exclusively
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
used by the Marines in the Pacific. While I can tolerate the odd
Hinkel flying around Midway, seeing an Unertl Scope being used in
the ETO completely destroys the movie.
Someone pickier than me!
I feel your pain.
Well, I did overlook the P-51 being used as tank buster.

The coward that runs around with the ammo belt in the last battle
scene, some bullets are missing primers.

Did you notice how the sniper swapped scopes without having to site it
back in

And what's with those MG 42 machine guns, christ, they fired them
non-stop. I guess they had an endless supply of replacement barrels.
Another nit-pick, got this one from Guns & Ammo. When you deploy an MG
42, the front site has to be rotated upwards. In Saving Private Ryan,
they are always down. Ha, now I just ruined the movie for you.

The M1 Carbines in Saving Private Ryan had bayonete lugs, I don't think
that would be possible until late '44. If I ever find my M1 Carbine
book, I'll have to look that up again.


One general question about WW2 movies with Germans, how come when the
Germans run out of their bunker, they always look the wrong way and are
picked off?
xyzzy
2005-04-28 16:05:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
Just saw the end of it on WGN. Still a great movie.
The question I have is this: in the scene where they toss the
"unpulled" grenades down the shaft, would a "pulled" grenade
later
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
tossed in really have that much affect on the "unpulled"
grenades
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
already down there? I'm thinking they would supply
additional
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
shrapnel, but wouldn't explode. (In the movie, they caused a
huge
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
explosion.)
Am I right?
Don't forget about the gas. Ya gotta remember the gas.
Mega-huge kudos to the studio for having a real live German
WWII halftrack in working condition.
-Tom Enright
That's right. Nothing worse than having a "Tiger" tank being a
Sherman
Post by Pauli G
or a Patton with German crosses painted on them. Of course,
the
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
strangest looking Tiger tanks have to be the ones in Kelly's
Heroes.
Post by Pauli G
And Corsairs flying about during the battle of Midway.
In which film/TV series? I know that the movie Midway didn't have
Corsairs.
I haven't seen it in a while but I'm pretty sure that's the movie
with the Corsair.
Didn't the Battle of Midway movie also have a Heinkel He-111 in
one
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
of the air combat shots?
Dude. It's hard enough finding enough working warbirds of any kind
to
Post by xyzzy
make a movie with. If you demand total authenticity be prepared to
spend $millions or forget it. It's probably the same with tanks,
half-tracks, etc.
Yeah but an He-111? Even if they thought it represented a G4
'Nell',
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
are
we to assume it took off from a carrier? From what I understand,
some
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
of
the distant shots of the air combat in Battle of Midway was lifted
from
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
the Battle of Britain movie.
Of course even worst is Saving Private Ryan, when the American
sniper
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
has an Unertl scope on his '03 Springfield. That scope was
exclusively
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
used by the Marines in the Pacific. While I can tolerate the odd
Hinkel flying around Midway, seeing an Unertl Scope being used in
the ETO completely destroys the movie.
Someone pickier than me!
I feel your pain.
Well, I did overlook the P-51 being used as tank buster.
The coward that runs around with the ammo belt in the last battle
scene, some bullets are missing primers.
Did you notice how the sniper swapped scopes without having to site it
back in
And what's with those MG 42 machine guns, christ, they fired them
non-stop. I guess they had an endless supply of replacement barrels.
Another nit-pick, got this one from Guns & Ammo. When you deploy an MG
42, the front site has to be rotated upwards. In Saving Private Ryan,
they are always down. Ha, now I just ruined the movie for you.
The M1 Carbines in Saving Private Ryan had bayonete lugs, I don't think
that would be possible until late '44. If I ever find my M1 Carbine
book, I'll have to look that up again.
One general question about WW2 movies with Germans, how come when the
Germans run out of their bunker, they always look the wrong way and are
picked off?
Those sneaky american soldiers tap them on the wrong shoulder as they
are coming out.
Ike
2005-04-28 17:18:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
Just saw the end of it on WGN. Still a great movie.
The question I have is this: in the scene where they toss the
"unpulled" grenades down the shaft, would a "pulled" grenade
later
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
tossed in really have that much affect on the "unpulled"
grenades
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
already down there? I'm thinking they would supply
additional
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
shrapnel, but wouldn't explode. (In the movie, they caused a
huge
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
explosion.)
Am I right?
Don't forget about the gas. Ya gotta remember the gas.
Mega-huge kudos to the studio for having a real live German
WWII halftrack in working condition.
-Tom Enright
That's right. Nothing worse than having a "Tiger" tank being a
Sherman
Post by Pauli G
or a Patton with German crosses painted on them. Of course,
the
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
strangest looking Tiger tanks have to be the ones in Kelly's
Heroes.
Post by Pauli G
And Corsairs flying about during the battle of Midway.
In which film/TV series? I know that the movie Midway didn't have
Corsairs.
I haven't seen it in a while but I'm pretty sure that's the movie
with the Corsair.
Didn't the Battle of Midway movie also have a Heinkel He-111 in
one
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
of the air combat shots?
Dude. It's hard enough finding enough working warbirds of any kind
to
Post by xyzzy
make a movie with. If you demand total authenticity be prepared to
spend $millions or forget it. It's probably the same with tanks,
half-tracks, etc.
Yeah but an He-111? Even if they thought it represented a G4
'Nell',
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
are
we to assume it took off from a carrier? From what I understand,
some
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
of
the distant shots of the air combat in Battle of Midway was lifted
from
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
the Battle of Britain movie.
Of course even worst is Saving Private Ryan, when the American
sniper
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
has an Unertl scope on his '03 Springfield. That scope was
exclusively
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
used by the Marines in the Pacific. While I can tolerate the odd
Hinkel flying around Midway, seeing an Unertl Scope being used in
the ETO completely destroys the movie.
Someone pickier than me!
I feel your pain.
Well, I did overlook the P-51 being used as tank buster.
Hmm. Never thought of that.

Well, it *does* have the same armament as the T-bolt, right?
Either 6 or 8 .50 BMG's in the wings and wing mounts to make it
rocket/bomb/napalm capable?
Post by cardboard
The coward that runs around with the ammo belt in the last battle
scene, some bullets are missing primers.
!
Post by cardboard
Did you notice how the sniper swapped scopes without having to site it
back in
Didn't catch it.
Post by cardboard
And what's with those MG 42 machine guns, christ, they fired them
non-stop. I guess they had an endless supply of replacement barrels.
Another nit-pick, got this one from Guns & Ammo. When you deploy an MG
42, the front site has to be rotated upwards. In Saving Private Ryan,
they are always down. Ha, now I just ruined the movie for you.
Well, to be fair- all movies seem to treat MG's as is they are
miraculously maintenance free.
Post by cardboard
The M1 Carbines in Saving Private Ryan had bayonete lugs, I don't think
that would be possible until late '44. If I ever find my M1 Carbine
book, I'll have to look that up again.
Good catch. I don;t know the dates on that.
Post by cardboard
One general question about WW2 movies with Germans, how come when the
Germans run out of their bunker, they always look the wrong way and are
picked off?
They were looking for the spare MG42 barrels!
--
**********************
"Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real
sports. . . all others are children's games ."
--Ernest Hemingway

**********************
cardboard
2005-04-29 06:38:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Well, I did overlook the P-51 being used as tank buster.
Hmm. Never thought of that.
Well, it *does* have the same armament as the T-bolt, right?
Either 6 or 8 .50 BMG's in the wings and wing mounts to make it
rocket/bomb/napalm capable?
They could be used but in the middle of 1944, it would seem to be
a waste since they were useful for long range bomber escort. This
frees up the P47s for other roles like ground support. Then
again maybe P51s were used, afterall, this was shortly after
D-Day and what good is it to bomb Dusseldorf when the panzers are
trying to drive you out of France.

Speaking of tank busting, I read some place that one of the tricks
with tank busting was to shoot at the road before the tank to have
the bullets bounce and hit the softer underside. Don't know how
factual that is but it would be a clever trick.

Now if Spielberg wanted to do something cool, he would have used
one of those Hawker Hurricanes that were fitted with a pair of
40mm cannons for the tank buster scene.
xyzzy
2005-04-28 18:18:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
Just saw the end of it on WGN. Still a great movie.
The question I have is this: in the scene where they toss the
"unpulled" grenades down the shaft, would a "pulled" grenade
later
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
tossed in really have that much affect on the "unpulled"
grenades
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
already down there? I'm thinking they would supply
additional
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
shrapnel, but wouldn't explode. (In the movie, they caused a
huge
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
explosion.)
Am I right?
Don't forget about the gas. Ya gotta remember the gas.
Mega-huge kudos to the studio for having a real live German
WWII halftrack in working condition.
-Tom Enright
That's right. Nothing worse than having a "Tiger" tank being a
Sherman
Post by Pauli G
or a Patton with German crosses painted on them. Of course,
the
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
strangest looking Tiger tanks have to be the ones in Kelly's
Heroes.
Post by Pauli G
And Corsairs flying about during the battle of Midway.
In which film/TV series? I know that the movie Midway didn't have
Corsairs.
I haven't seen it in a while but I'm pretty sure that's the movie
with the Corsair.
Didn't the Battle of Midway movie also have a Heinkel He-111 in
one
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
of the air combat shots?
Dude. It's hard enough finding enough working warbirds of any kind
to
Post by xyzzy
make a movie with. If you demand total authenticity be prepared to
spend $millions or forget it. It's probably the same with tanks,
half-tracks, etc.
Yeah but an He-111? Even if they thought it represented a G4
'Nell',
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
are
we to assume it took off from a carrier? From what I understand,
some
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
of
the distant shots of the air combat in Battle of Midway was lifted
from
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
the Battle of Britain movie.
Of course even worst is Saving Private Ryan, when the American
sniper
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
has an Unertl scope on his '03 Springfield. That scope was
exclusively
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
used by the Marines in the Pacific. While I can tolerate the odd
Hinkel flying around Midway, seeing an Unertl Scope being used in
the ETO completely destroys the movie.
Someone pickier than me!
I feel your pain.
Well, I did overlook the P-51 being used as tank buster.
from: http://www.chuckhawks.com/mustang_P-51.htm

As Allied fighters gained air superiority in both the European and
Pacific theaters of war, the Mustang was increasing tasked with ground
attack chores. In this role it was also successful, although the P-51
was at its best as an air superiority fighter. Its single, liquid-cooled
engine made it more succeptible to ground fire than the durable P-47
with its air-cooled radial engine or the twin engine P-38. A single
bullet through a vulnerable cooling line could bring a Mustang down with
a siezed engine.
d***@aol.com
2005-04-28 22:33:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
Just saw the end of it on WGN. Still a great movie.
The question I have is this: in the scene where they toss the
"unpulled" grenades down the shaft, would a "pulled"
grenade
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
later
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
tossed in really have that much affect on the "unpulled"
grenades
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
already down there? I'm thinking they would supply
additional
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
shrapnel, but wouldn't explode. (In the movie, they caused a
huge
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
explosion.)
Am I right?
Don't forget about the gas. Ya gotta remember the gas.
Mega-huge kudos to the studio for having a real live German
WWII halftrack in working condition.
-Tom Enright
That's right. Nothing worse than having a "Tiger" tank being a
Sherman
Post by Pauli G
or a Patton with German crosses painted on them. Of course,
the
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
strangest looking Tiger tanks have to be the ones in Kelly's
Heroes.
Post by Pauli G
And Corsairs flying about during the battle of Midway.
In which film/TV series? I know that the movie Midway didn't have
Corsairs.
I haven't seen it in a while but I'm pretty sure that's the movie
with the Corsair.
Didn't the Battle of Midway movie also have a Heinkel He-111 in
one
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
of the air combat shots?
Dude. It's hard enough finding enough working warbirds of any kind
to
Post by xyzzy
make a movie with. If you demand total authenticity be prepared to
spend $millions or forget it. It's probably the same with tanks,
half-tracks, etc.
Yeah but an He-111? Even if they thought it represented a G4
'Nell',
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
are
we to assume it took off from a carrier? From what I understand,
some
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
of
the distant shots of the air combat in Battle of Midway was lifted
from
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
the Battle of Britain movie.
Of course even worst is Saving Private Ryan, when the American
sniper
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
has an Unertl scope on his '03 Springfield. That scope was
exclusively
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
used by the Marines in the Pacific. While I can tolerate the odd
Hinkel flying around Midway, seeing an Unertl Scope being used in
the ETO completely destroys the movie.
Someone pickier than me!
I feel your pain.
Well, I did overlook the P-51 being used as tank buster.
from: http://www.chuckhawks.com/mustang_P-51.htm
As Allied fighters gained air superiority in both the European and
Pacific theaters of war, the Mustang was increasing tasked with ground
attack chores. In this role it was also successful, although the P-51
was at its best as an air superiority fighter. Its single,
liquid-cooled
Post by xyzzy
engine made it more succeptible to ground fire than the durable P-47
with its air-cooled radial engine or the twin engine P-38. A single
bullet through a vulnerable cooling line could bring a Mustang down with
a siezed engine.
Pretty much all Allied fighters were tasked with ground attack as
soon as they were released from escort duty. As less were needed for
escort duty, more were specifically tasked for support....they couldn't
just leave all of those planes sitting around with nothing to do.
cardboard
2005-04-29 07:02:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by SNORKY
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
Just saw the end of it on WGN. Still a great movie.
The question I have is this: in the scene where they toss
the
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
"unpulled" grenades down the shaft, would a "pulled"
grenade
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
later
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
tossed in really have that much affect on the "unpulled"
grenades
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
already down there? I'm thinking they would supply
additional
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
shrapnel, but wouldn't explode. (In the movie, they
caused
Post by SNORKY
a
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
huge
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
explosion.)
Am I right?
Don't forget about the gas. Ya gotta remember the gas.
Mega-huge kudos to the studio for having a real live German
WWII halftrack in working condition.
-Tom Enright
That's right. Nothing worse than having a "Tiger" tank
being
Post by SNORKY
a
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Sherman
Post by Pauli G
or a Patton with German crosses painted on them. Of
course,
Post by SNORKY
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
the
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
strangest looking Tiger tanks have to be the ones in
Kelly's
Post by SNORKY
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Heroes.
Post by Pauli G
And Corsairs flying about during the battle of Midway.
In which film/TV series? I know that the movie Midway didn't
have
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Corsairs.
I haven't seen it in a while but I'm pretty sure that's the
movie
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
with the Corsair.
Didn't the Battle of Midway movie also have a Heinkel He-111 in
one
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
of the air combat shots?
Dude. It's hard enough finding enough working warbirds of any
kind
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
to
Post by xyzzy
make a movie with. If you demand total authenticity be
prepared
Post by SNORKY
to
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
spend $millions or forget it. It's probably the same with tanks,
half-tracks, etc.
Yeah but an He-111? Even if they thought it represented a G4
'Nell',
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
are
we to assume it took off from a carrier? From what I
understand,
Post by SNORKY
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
some
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
of
the distant shots of the air combat in Battle of Midway was lifted
from
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
the Battle of Britain movie.
Of course even worst is Saving Private Ryan, when the American
sniper
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
has an Unertl scope on his '03 Springfield. That scope was
exclusively
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
used by the Marines in the Pacific. While I can tolerate the odd
Hinkel flying around Midway, seeing an Unertl Scope being used in
the ETO completely destroys the movie.
Someone pickier than me!
I feel your pain.
Well, I did overlook the P-51 being used as tank buster.
from: http://www.chuckhawks.com/mustang_P-51.htm
As Allied fighters gained air superiority in both the European and
Pacific theaters of war, the Mustang was increasing tasked with
ground
Post by xyzzy
attack chores. In this role it was also successful, although the P-51
was at its best as an air superiority fighter. Its single,
liquid-cooled
Post by xyzzy
engine made it more succeptible to ground fire than the durable P-47
with its air-cooled radial engine or the twin engine P-38. A single
bullet through a vulnerable cooling line could bring a Mustang down
with
Post by xyzzy
a siezed engine.
Pretty much all Allied fighters were tasked with ground attack as
soon as they were released from escort duty. As less were needed for
escort duty, more were specifically tasked for support....they
couldn't
Post by SNORKY
just leave all of those planes sitting around with nothing to do.
I forget, how did the Mustang destroy the tank in Saving Private Slick?
I think it was a bomb but I didn't check to see if the plane had a bomb
rank. If it was a bomb or rocket, I doubt it would have returned from
escort duty since it would have been equiped with a drop tank.

At the time the movie took place, England was getting pounded by V-1
attacks, thus anything that could attack ground targets was put up.
Ike didn't want to be "sacked" by angry Brits who thought he wasn't
doing
enough to stop them.
xyzzy
2005-04-29 14:40:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
Just saw the end of it on WGN. Still a great movie.
The question I have is this: in the scene where they toss
the
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
"unpulled" grenades down the shaft, would a "pulled"
grenade
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
later
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
tossed in really have that much affect on the "unpulled"
grenades
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
already down there? I'm thinking they would supply
additional
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
shrapnel, but wouldn't explode. (In the movie, they
caused
Post by SNORKY
a
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
huge
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
explosion.)
Am I right?
Don't forget about the gas. Ya gotta remember the gas.
Mega-huge kudos to the studio for having a real live
German
Post by SNORKY
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
WWII halftrack in working condition.
-Tom Enright
That's right. Nothing worse than having a "Tiger" tank
being
Post by SNORKY
a
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Sherman
Post by Pauli G
or a Patton with German crosses painted on them. Of
course,
Post by SNORKY
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
the
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
strangest looking Tiger tanks have to be the ones in
Kelly's
Post by SNORKY
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Heroes.
Post by Pauli G
And Corsairs flying about during the battle of Midway.
In which film/TV series? I know that the movie Midway didn't
have
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Corsairs.
I haven't seen it in a while but I'm pretty sure that's the
movie
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
with the Corsair.
Didn't the Battle of Midway movie also have a Heinkel He-111
in
Post by SNORKY
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
one
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
of the air combat shots?
Dude. It's hard enough finding enough working warbirds of any
kind
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
to
Post by xyzzy
make a movie with. If you demand total authenticity be
prepared
Post by SNORKY
to
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
spend $millions or forget it. It's probably the same with
tanks,
Post by SNORKY
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
half-tracks, etc.
Yeah but an He-111? Even if they thought it represented a G4
'Nell',
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
are
we to assume it took off from a carrier? From what I
understand,
Post by SNORKY
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
some
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
of
the distant shots of the air combat in Battle of Midway was
lifted
Post by SNORKY
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
from
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
the Battle of Britain movie.
Of course even worst is Saving Private Ryan, when the American
sniper
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
has an Unertl scope on his '03 Springfield. That scope was
exclusively
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
used by the Marines in the Pacific. While I can tolerate the
odd
Post by SNORKY
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Hinkel flying around Midway, seeing an Unertl Scope being used
in
Post by SNORKY
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
the ETO completely destroys the movie.
Someone pickier than me!
I feel your pain.
Well, I did overlook the P-51 being used as tank buster.
from: http://www.chuckhawks.com/mustang_P-51.htm
As Allied fighters gained air superiority in both the European and
Pacific theaters of war, the Mustang was increasing tasked with
ground
Post by xyzzy
attack chores. In this role it was also successful, although the
P-51
Post by SNORKY
Post by xyzzy
was at its best as an air superiority fighter. Its single,
liquid-cooled
Post by xyzzy
engine made it more succeptible to ground fire than the durable
P-47
Post by SNORKY
Post by xyzzy
with its air-cooled radial engine or the twin engine P-38. A single
bullet through a vulnerable cooling line could bring a Mustang down
with
Post by xyzzy
a siezed engine.
Pretty much all Allied fighters were tasked with ground attack as
soon as they were released from escort duty. As less were needed for
escort duty, more were specifically tasked for support....they
couldn't
Post by SNORKY
just leave all of those planes sitting around with nothing to do.
I forget, how did the Mustang destroy the tank in Saving Private Slick?
I think it was a bomb but I didn't check to see if the plane had a bomb
rank. If it was a bomb or rocket, I doubt it would have returned from
escort duty since it would have been equiped with a drop tank.
Well I was too busy thinking how good that pilot was, to blow up the
tank without damaging the bridge they were on, to wonder about that.
d***@aol.com
2005-04-29 20:31:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
Just saw the end of it on WGN. Still a great movie.
The question I have is this: in the scene where they toss
the
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
"unpulled" grenades down the shaft, would a "pulled"
grenade
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
later
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
tossed in really have that much affect on the
"unpulled"
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
grenades
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
already down there? I'm thinking they would supply
additional
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
shrapnel, but wouldn't explode. (In the movie, they
caused
Post by SNORKY
a
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
huge
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
explosion.)
Am I right?
Don't forget about the gas. Ya gotta remember the gas.
Mega-huge kudos to the studio for having a real live
German
Post by SNORKY
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
Post by Tom Enright
WWII halftrack in working condition.
-Tom Enright
That's right. Nothing worse than having a "Tiger" tank
being
Post by SNORKY
a
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Sherman
Post by Pauli G
or a Patton with German crosses painted on them. Of
course,
Post by SNORKY
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
the
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Post by Pauli G
Post by Pauli G
strangest looking Tiger tanks have to be the ones in
Kelly's
Post by SNORKY
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Heroes.
Post by Pauli G
And Corsairs flying about during the battle of Midway.
In which film/TV series? I know that the movie Midway didn't
have
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
Post by SNORKY
Corsairs.
I haven't seen it in a while but I'm pretty sure that's the
movie
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
with the Corsair.
Didn't the Battle of Midway movie also have a Heinkel He-111
in
Post by SNORKY
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
one
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
Post by SNORKY
of the air combat shots?
Dude. It's hard enough finding enough working warbirds of any
kind
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
to
Post by xyzzy
make a movie with. If you demand total authenticity be
prepared
Post by SNORKY
to
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
spend $millions or forget it. It's probably the same with
tanks,
Post by SNORKY
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Post by xyzzy
half-tracks, etc.
Yeah but an He-111? Even if they thought it represented a G4
'Nell',
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
are
we to assume it took off from a carrier? From what I
understand,
Post by SNORKY
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
some
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
of
the distant shots of the air combat in Battle of Midway was
lifted
Post by SNORKY
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
from
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
the Battle of Britain movie.
Of course even worst is Saving Private Ryan, when the American
sniper
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
has an Unertl scope on his '03 Springfield. That scope was
exclusively
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
used by the Marines in the Pacific. While I can tolerate the
odd
Post by SNORKY
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
Hinkel flying around Midway, seeing an Unertl Scope being used
in
Post by SNORKY
Post by xyzzy
Post by cardboard
Post by Ike
Post by cardboard
the ETO completely destroys the movie.
Someone pickier than me!
I feel your pain.
Well, I did overlook the P-51 being used as tank buster.
from: http://www.chuckhawks.com/mustang_P-51.htm
As Allied fighters gained air superiority in both the European and
Pacific theaters of war, the Mustang was increasing tasked with
ground
Post by xyzzy
attack chores. In this role it was also successful, although the
P-51
Post by SNORKY
Post by xyzzy
was at its best as an air superiority fighter. Its single,
liquid-cooled
Post by xyzzy
engine made it more succeptible to ground fire than the durable
P-47
Post by SNORKY
Post by xyzzy
with its air-cooled radial engine or the twin engine P-38. A single
bullet through a vulnerable cooling line could bring a Mustang down
with
Post by xyzzy
a siezed engine.
Pretty much all Allied fighters were tasked with ground attack as
soon as they were released from escort duty. As less were needed for
escort duty, more were specifically tasked for support....they
couldn't
Post by SNORKY
just leave all of those planes sitting around with nothing to do.
I forget, how did the Mustang destroy the tank in Saving Private Slick?
I think it was a bomb but I didn't check to see if the plane had a bomb
rank. If it was a bomb or rocket, I doubt it would have returned from
escort duty since it would have been equiped with a drop tank.
At the time the movie took place, England was getting pounded by V-1
attacks, thus anything that could attack ground targets was put up.
Ike didn't want to be "sacked" by angry Brits who thought he wasn't
doing
enough to stop them.
I think it used a bomb which probably would've made it part of the
9th TAC. Even a fighter armed with nothing but its .50s could tear up
the top of a tank or its treads. I believe almost all of the dedicated
V-1 interceptors were RAF.
Tom Enright
2005-04-30 00:28:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
I think it used a bomb which probably would've made it part of the
9th TAC. Even a fighter armed with nothing but its .50s could tear up
the top of a tank or its treads. I believe almost all of the dedicated
V-1 interceptors were RAF.
A .50 caliber *could* pierce the upper-hull of a Tiger if given in
a concentrated enough dose. However, the better bet would be
to aim for underneath the tank and hope for the rebound.

A direct-hit from a bomb could only dissolve that Tiger as it was
depicted in the movie. I don't believe a rocket could cause that
much instaneous destruction.

-Tom Enright
d***@aol.com
2005-04-30 00:47:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Enright
Post by d***@aol.com
I think it used a bomb which probably would've made it part of the
9th TAC. Even a fighter armed with nothing but its .50s could tear up
the top of a tank or its treads. I believe almost all of the
dedicated
Post by Tom Enright
Post by d***@aol.com
V-1 interceptors were RAF.
A .50 caliber *could* pierce the upper-hull of a Tiger if given in
a concentrated enough dose. However, the better bet would be
to aim for underneath the tank and hope for the rebound.
A direct-hit from a bomb could only dissolve that Tiger as it was
depicted in the movie. I don't believe a rocket could cause that
much instaneous destruction.
-Tom Enright
Even concentrated .50 cal probably wouldn't destroy a Tiger, but it
could pierce the rear decking and hit the engine or, more likely, rip
off a tread/tear up roadwheels. In WW2 France, a mobility kill was
almost as good as a total.

Tom Enright
2005-04-27 17:16:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by cardboard
Yeah but an He-111? Even if they thought it represented a G4
'Nell', are we to assume it took off from a carrier? From what
I understand, some of the distant shots of the air combat in
Battle of Midway was lifted from the Battle of Britain movie.
I was listening to Book On Tape's "For Whom The Bell Tolls."
The narrator called them "Heinkel Threes" reading the 111 as
III.

Anyway, I don't recall seeing a Heinkel in "Midway." Remember
those to 111s that showed-up in "Patton" a couple of times?

I believe that the Me-109s that were in "Britain" were of the
Spanish Air Force who still had a few around. They are different
in appearance in the movie because the Spainards swapped the
eniges out.
Post by cardboard
Of course even worst is Saving Private Ryan, when the American
sniper has an Unertl scope on his '03 Springfield. That scope
was exclusively used by the Marines in the Pacific. While I
can tolerate the odd Hinkel flying around Midway, seeing an
Unertl Scope being used in the ETO completely destroys the movie.
I'm pretty picky as well.

The scope thing wouldn't bother *me* too much because you could
make the case that he recevied the scope from a non-military
source; home, bought it at a pawn shop etc. Perhaps he was
regular army and volunteered for the Rangers and took the
scope along with him. There are numerous examples of soldiers
getting their hands on "non-standard" weapons and equipment.
The Thompson being an example.

One of the worst I've seen is in "The Slaughter House Five."
While not strictly a military movie, it can be excused to a
degree, but I don't believe that Marines in Pacific camos
fought at the Battle of Bastonge.

-Tom Enright
d***@aol.com
2005-04-27 17:23:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Enright
Post by cardboard
Yeah but an He-111? Even if they thought it represented a G4
'Nell', are we to assume it took off from a carrier? From what
I understand, some of the distant shots of the air combat in
Battle of Midway was lifted from the Battle of Britain movie.
I was listening to Book On Tape's "For Whom The Bell Tolls."
The narrator called them "Heinkel Threes" reading the 111 as
III.
Anyway, I don't recall seeing a Heinkel in "Midway." Remember
those to 111s that showed-up in "Patton" a couple of times?
I believe that the Me-109s that were in "Britain" were of the
Spanish Air Force who still had a few around. They are different
in appearance in the movie because the Spainards swapped the
eniges out.
Post by cardboard
Of course even worst is Saving Private Ryan, when the American
sniper has an Unertl scope on his '03 Springfield. That scope
was exclusively used by the Marines in the Pacific. While I
can tolerate the odd Hinkel flying around Midway, seeing an
Unertl Scope being used in the ETO completely destroys the movie.
I'm pretty picky as well.
The scope thing wouldn't bother *me* too much because you could
make the case that he recevied the scope from a non-military
source; home, bought it at a pawn shop etc. Perhaps he was
regular army and volunteered for the Rangers and took the
scope along with him. There are numerous examples of soldiers
getting their hands on "non-standard" weapons and equipment.
The Thompson being an example.
One of the worst I've seen is in "The Slaughter House Five."
While not strictly a military movie, it can be excused to a
degree, but I don't believe that Marines in Pacific camos
fought at the Battle of Bastonge.
-Tom Enright
The Spanish used re-engined 109s and Heinkels into the early 70s.
They used Ju-52s into the 80s.
cardboard
2005-04-28 03:20:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Tom Enright
Post by cardboard
Yeah but an He-111? Even if they thought it represented a G4
'Nell', are we to assume it took off from a carrier? From what
I understand, some of the distant shots of the air combat in
Battle of Midway was lifted from the Battle of Britain movie.
I was listening to Book On Tape's "For Whom The Bell Tolls."
The narrator called them "Heinkel Threes" reading the 111 as
III.
Anyway, I don't recall seeing a Heinkel in "Midway." Remember
those to 111s that showed-up in "Patton" a couple of times?
I believe that the Me-109s that were in "Britain" were of the
Spanish Air Force who still had a few around. They are different
in appearance in the movie because the Spainards swapped the
eniges out.
Post by cardboard
Of course even worst is Saving Private Ryan, when the American
sniper has an Unertl scope on his '03 Springfield. That scope
was exclusively used by the Marines in the Pacific. While I
can tolerate the odd Hinkel flying around Midway, seeing an
Unertl Scope being used in the ETO completely destroys the movie.
I'm pretty picky as well.
The scope thing wouldn't bother *me* too much because you could
make the case that he recevied the scope from a non-military
source; home, bought it at a pawn shop etc. Perhaps he was
regular army and volunteered for the Rangers and took the
scope along with him. There are numerous examples of soldiers
getting their hands on "non-standard" weapons and equipment.
The Thompson being an example.
One of the worst I've seen is in "The Slaughter House Five."
While not strictly a military movie, it can be excused to a
degree, but I don't believe that Marines in Pacific camos
fought at the Battle of Bastonge.
-Tom Enright
The Spanish used re-engined 109s and Heinkels into the early 70s.
They used Ju-52s into the 80s.
I think there is an old Spanish He-111 still flying (Conferate AF
perhaps)
that has Rolls Royce Merlins.
James Schrumpf
2005-04-28 03:32:00 UTC
Permalink
How do you prefer your martini, Mr. "cardboard"
Post by cardboard
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Tom Enright
Post by cardboard
Yeah but an He-111? Even if they thought it represented a G4
'Nell', are we to assume it took off from a carrier? From what
I understand, some of the distant shots of the air combat in
Battle of Midway was lifted from the Battle of Britain movie.
I was listening to Book On Tape's "For Whom The Bell Tolls."
The narrator called them "Heinkel Threes" reading the 111 as
III.
Anyway, I don't recall seeing a Heinkel in "Midway." Remember
those to 111s that showed-up in "Patton" a couple of times?
I believe that the Me-109s that were in "Britain" were of the
Spanish Air Force who still had a few around. They are different
in appearance in the movie because the Spainards swapped the
eniges out.
Post by cardboard
Of course even worst is Saving Private Ryan, when the American
sniper has an Unertl scope on his '03 Springfield. That scope
was exclusively used by the Marines in the Pacific. While I
can tolerate the odd Hinkel flying around Midway, seeing an
Unertl Scope being used in the ETO completely destroys the movie.
I'm pretty picky as well.
The scope thing wouldn't bother *me* too much because you could
make the case that he recevied the scope from a non-military
source; home, bought it at a pawn shop etc. Perhaps he was
regular army and volunteered for the Rangers and took the
scope along with him. There are numerous examples of soldiers
getting their hands on "non-standard" weapons and equipment.
The Thompson being an example.
One of the worst I've seen is in "The Slaughter House Five."
While not strictly a military movie, it can be excused to a
degree, but I don't believe that Marines in Pacific camos
fought at the Battle of Bastonge.
-Tom Enright
The Spanish used re-engined 109s and Heinkels into the early 70s.
They used Ju-52s into the 80s.
I think there is an old Spanish He-111 still flying (Conferate AF
perhaps)
that has Rolls Royce Merlins.
The worst WWII movie of all time in the "wrong equipment, wrong location,
wrong everything" department is "The Battle of the Bulge."

Unless of course, your idea of TBOTB is a tank battle in a semi-arid
rolling hills terrain location with no snow, no fog and no forest.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net

Well, look. I mean, is he gonna be able to chase us? Cause if I woke up
lookin' like that, I would just run towards the nearest living thing and
kill it.
-- Master Shake
Tom Enright
2005-04-28 14:52:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Schrumpf
The worst WWII movie of all time in the "wrong equipment,
wrong location, wrong everything" department is "The Battle
of the Bulge."
Unless of course, your idea of TBOTB is a tank battle in a
semi-arid rolling hills terrain location with no snow, no
fog and no forest.
You are correct, however, TBOTB is the only WWII movie that
I have viewed that has one of these:

Loading Image...

The best infantry weapon of WWII (when the quality was up)

-Tom Enright
Post by James Schrumpf
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by James Schrumpf
James Schrumpf
http://www.hilltopper.net
Post by James Schrumpf
Well, look. I mean, is he gonna be able to chase us? Cause if I woke up
lookin' like that, I would just run towards the nearest living thing and
kill it.
-- Master Shake
xyzzy
2005-04-28 16:08:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Schrumpf
How do you prefer your martini, Mr. "cardboard"
Post by cardboard
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Tom Enright
Post by cardboard
Yeah but an He-111? Even if they thought it represented a G4
'Nell', are we to assume it took off from a carrier? From what
I understand, some of the distant shots of the air combat in
Battle of Midway was lifted from the Battle of Britain movie.
I was listening to Book On Tape's "For Whom The Bell Tolls."
The narrator called them "Heinkel Threes" reading the 111 as
III.
Anyway, I don't recall seeing a Heinkel in "Midway." Remember
those to 111s that showed-up in "Patton" a couple of times?
I believe that the Me-109s that were in "Britain" were of the
Spanish Air Force who still had a few around. They are different
in appearance in the movie because the Spainards swapped the
eniges out.
Post by cardboard
Of course even worst is Saving Private Ryan, when the American
sniper has an Unertl scope on his '03 Springfield. That scope
was exclusively used by the Marines in the Pacific. While I
can tolerate the odd Hinkel flying around Midway, seeing an
Unertl Scope being used in the ETO completely destroys the movie.
I'm pretty picky as well.
The scope thing wouldn't bother *me* too much because you could
make the case that he recevied the scope from a non-military
source; home, bought it at a pawn shop etc. Perhaps he was
regular army and volunteered for the Rangers and took the
scope along with him. There are numerous examples of soldiers
getting their hands on "non-standard" weapons and equipment.
The Thompson being an example.
One of the worst I've seen is in "The Slaughter House Five."
While not strictly a military movie, it can be excused to a
degree, but I don't believe that Marines in Pacific camos
fought at the Battle of Bastonge.
-Tom Enright
The Spanish used re-engined 109s and Heinkels into the early 70s.
They used Ju-52s into the 80s.
I think there is an old Spanish He-111 still flying (Conferate AF
perhaps)
that has Rolls Royce Merlins.
The worst WWII movie of all time in the "wrong equipment, wrong location,
wrong everything" department is "The Battle of the Bulge."
Unless of course, your idea of TBOTB is a tank battle in a semi-arid
rolling hills terrain location with no snow, no fog and no forest.
Dude, that was only for the last big scene in the movie! It is funny
how jarringly different that last scene is from the rest of the movie.
Tom Enright
2005-04-28 17:55:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by xyzzy
Dude, that was only for the last big scene in the movie! It
is funny how jarringly different that last scene is from the
rest of the movie.
Whenever I see something like that, a scene that seems to
have no connection to the film itself, I think of the MST3K
line: "Meanwhile, in a completely different movie..."

A few things I remember about "Ryan" that comes to mind is
that Tiger tank:

They connect those sticky charges to the road wheels of
the tank but when the go-off the track is broken. Not
that the charge couldn't have broke the track, but it
would have damaged the wheels to some degree.

When the commander begins his exit, the tank the hatch cover
looks like it weighs about the same as a piece of cardboard
and is as thick. I am sure the real Tiger hatch had a
spring assist opening, but it would still have taken some
effort.

Tom Hanks walks up to the driver's view slit and fires his
Thompson into it, I don't know how well this technology
worked in 1944, but there is armored glass in there.


-Tom Enright
Ike
2005-04-26 14:23:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Enright
Post by SNORKY
Just saw the end of it on WGN. Still a great movie.
The question I have is this: in the scene where they toss the
"unpulled" grenades down the shaft, would a "pulled" grenade later
tossed in really have that much affect on the "unpulled" grenades
already down there? I'm thinking they would supply additional
shrapnel, but wouldn't explode. (In the movie, they caused a huge
explosion.)
Am I right?
Don't forget about the gas. Ya gotta remember the gas.
Mega-huge kudos to the studio for having a real live German
WWII halftrack in working condition.
Indeed.

I remember the other vehicles were correct, as well- the wheeled
Flak-wagen on the bridge, zundapp motorcycle, as well as a Kubelwagen or
two...
--
**********************
"Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real
sports. . . all others are children's games ."
--Ernest Hemingway

**********************
Ike
2005-04-26 14:13:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by SNORKY
Just saw the end of it on WGN. Still a great movie.
The question I have is this: in the scene where they toss the
"unpulled" grenades down the shaft, would a "pulled" grenade later
tossed in really have that much affect on the "unpulled" grenades
already down there? I'm thinking they would supply additional
shrapnel, but wouldn't explode. (In the movie, they caused a huge
explosion.)
Am I right?
As for the explosion- I think the umpteen jerry-cans of gas helped.
Also- I was always under the impression a grenade *will* explode
sympathetically- I've seen (WWII)pics of stick grenades being tied/taped
into a bunch to increase the effect.
--
**********************
"Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real
sports. . . all others are children's games ."
--Ernest Hemingway

**********************
Tom Enright
2005-04-26 14:26:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ike
As for the explosion- I think the umpteen jerry-cans of gas
helped. Also- I was always under the impression a grenade
*will* explode sympathetically- I've seen (WWII)pics of
stick grenades being tied/taped into a bunch to increase
the effect.
Third from the bottom:

http://www.11thpanzer.com/dsp_weapons.htm

-Tom Enright
Post by Ike
--
**********************
"Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real
sports. . . all others are children's games ."
--Ernest Hemingway
**********************
d***@aol.com
2005-04-26 14:47:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Enright
Post by Ike
As for the explosion- I think the umpteen jerry-cans of gas
helped. Also- I was always under the impression a grenade
*will* explode sympathetically- I've seen (WWII)pics of
stick grenades being tied/taped into a bunch to increase
the effect.
http://www.11thpanzer.com/dsp_weapons.htm
-Tom Enright
Post by Ike
--
"Will" vs "can".....and the potato masher was different from the US
pineapple...larger charge and thinner casing. I'd say a grenade could
explode another, but quite well might not unless it was right next to
it, tied to it, etc. The grenade (WW2 US-style pineapple)had a very
small charge (2 ounces if I remember correctly) and was only considered
effective out to a blast radius of 10 yards or so. I believe 10 yards
was the radius that 50% of exposed personnel would likely be hit by a
fragment.....once a gain, this is off the top of my head and I could be
wrong. My main point is that WW2 grenades did not flatten houses, cause
huge fiery explosions, etc as we see in special effects.
Tom Enright
2005-04-26 14:54:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Tom Enright
Post by Ike
As for the explosion- I think the umpteen jerry-cans of gas
helped. Also- I was always under the impression a grenade
*will* explode sympathetically- I've seen (WWII)pics of
stick grenades being tied/taped into a bunch to increase
the effect.
http://www.11thpanzer.com/dsp_weapons.htm
-Tom Enright
"Will" vs "can".....and the potato masher was different
from the US pineapple...larger charge and thinner casing.
I'd say a grenade could explode another, but quite well might
not unless it was right next to it, tied to it, etc. The
grenade (WW2 US-style pineapple)had a very small charge
(2 ounces if I remember correctly) and was only considered
effective out to a blast radius of 10 yards or so. I believe
10 yards was the radius that 50% of exposed personnel would
likely be hit by a fragment.....once a gain, this is off the
top of my head and I could be wrong. My main point is that
WW2 grenades did not flatten houses, cause huge fiery
explosions, etc as we see in special effects.
I'm not disagree with you, merely adding info.

The picture I provided is of one stick grendade with the heads
of other stick grenades (stick unscrewed and removed) tied
together. However, the picture I wanted to find was of one
stick grenade sourrounded by the German "egg" type grenade,
which is more comprable, IIRC, to the standard issue American
"pineapple."

-Tom Enright
-Tom Enright
d***@aol.com
2005-04-26 15:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Enright
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Tom Enright
Post by Ike
As for the explosion- I think the umpteen jerry-cans of gas
helped. Also- I was always under the impression a grenade
*will* explode sympathetically- I've seen (WWII)pics of
stick grenades being tied/taped into a bunch to increase
the effect.
http://www.11thpanzer.com/dsp_weapons.htm
-Tom Enright
"Will" vs "can".....and the potato masher was different
from the US pineapple...larger charge and thinner casing.
I'd say a grenade could explode another, but quite well might
not unless it was right next to it, tied to it, etc. The
grenade (WW2 US-style pineapple)had a very small charge
(2 ounces if I remember correctly) and was only considered
effective out to a blast radius of 10 yards or so. I believe
10 yards was the radius that 50% of exposed personnel would
likely be hit by a fragment.....once a gain, this is off the
top of my head and I could be wrong. My main point is that
WW2 grenades did not flatten houses, cause huge fiery
explosions, etc as we see in special effects.
I'm not disagree with you, merely adding info.
The picture I provided is of one stick grendade with the heads
of other stick grenades (stick unscrewed and removed) tied
together. However, the picture I wanted to find was of one
stick grenade sourrounded by the German "egg" type grenade,
which is more comprable, IIRC, to the standard issue American
"pineapple."
-Tom Enright
-Tom Enright
True, but the differences in the stick grenade still come into play.
I'd say an American pineapple in the same situation would work...all it
would have to do is explode one of those it was touching.
Ike
2005-04-26 16:25:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Tom Enright
Post by Ike
As for the explosion- I think the umpteen jerry-cans of gas
helped. Also- I was always under the impression a grenade
*will* explode sympathetically- I've seen (WWII)pics of
stick grenades being tied/taped into a bunch to increase
the effect.
http://www.11thpanzer.com/dsp_weapons.htm
-Tom Enright
Post by Ike
--
"Will" vs "can".....and the potato masher was different from the US
pineapple...larger charge and thinner casing. I'd say a grenade could
explode another, but quite well might not unless it was right next to
it, tied to it, etc.
I see where you are going- but I was assuming the fuse/cap (in the
top)was the key to it detonating, not the main charge in the body.
--
**********************
"Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real
sports. . . all others are children's games ."
--Ernest Hemingway

**********************
d***@aol.com
2005-04-26 16:47:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ike
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Tom Enright
Post by Ike
As for the explosion- I think the umpteen jerry-cans of gas
helped. Also- I was always under the impression a grenade
*will* explode sympathetically- I've seen (WWII)pics of
stick grenades being tied/taped into a bunch to increase
the effect.
http://www.11thpanzer.com/dsp_weapons.htm
-Tom Enright
Post by Ike
--
"Will" vs "can".....and the potato masher was different from the US
pineapple...larger charge and thinner casing. I'd say a grenade could
explode another, but quite well might not unless it was right next to
it, tied to it, etc.
I see where you are going- but I was assuming the fuse/cap (in the
top)was the key to it detonating, not the main charge in the body.
--
Could be....the center fuse connected to all of them. The original
question was dropping a grenade down a shaft on top of other grenades.
Ike
2005-04-26 17:23:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Could be....the center fuse connected to all of them. The original
question was dropping a grenade down a shaft on top of other grenades.
No, I wasn't clear... I meant the *sympathetic* explosion of the
secondary grenades' caps/fuses, without them being actually fused to the
primary grenade.. They are notably more volatile and much more exposed
than the main charge, and will explode from the concussion of the first
grenade, setting off the main charges of the other grenades. This is the
reason artillery shells and aerial bombs/etc. are not assembled with
their fuses and detonators until the last possible minute. Any old miner
will tell you of the dangers of handling caps/detonators.
--
**********************
"Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real
sports. . . all others are children's games ."
--Ernest Hemingway

**********************
d***@aol.com
2005-04-26 18:51:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ike
Post by d***@aol.com
Could be....the center fuse connected to all of them. The
original
Post by Ike
Post by d***@aol.com
question was dropping a grenade down a shaft on top of other
grenades.
Post by Ike
No, I wasn't clear... I meant the *sympathetic* explosion of the
secondary grenades' caps/fuses, without them being actually fused to the
primary grenade.. They are notably more volatile and much more
exposed
Post by Ike
than the main charge, and will explode from the concussion of the first
grenade, setting off the main charges of the other grenades. This is the
reason artillery shells and aerial bombs/etc. are not assembled with
their fuses and detonators until the last possible minute. Any old miner
will tell you of the dangers of handling caps/detonators.
--
Ok, gotcha.....you raise a good point.
xyzzy
2005-04-26 18:57:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@aol.com
Post by Tom Enright
Post by Ike
As for the explosion- I think the umpteen jerry-cans of gas
helped. Also- I was always under the impression a grenade
*will* explode sympathetically- I've seen (WWII)pics of
stick grenades being tied/taped into a bunch to increase
the effect.
http://www.11thpanzer.com/dsp_weapons.htm
-Tom Enright
Post by Ike
--
"Will" vs "can".....and the potato masher was different from the US
pineapple...larger charge and thinner casing. I'd say a grenade could
explode another, but quite well might not unless it was right next to
it, tied to it, etc. The grenade (WW2 US-style pineapple)had a very
small charge (2 ounces if I remember correctly) and was only considered
effective out to a blast radius of 10 yards or so. I believe 10 yards
was the radius that 50% of exposed personnel would likely be hit by a
fragment.....once a gain, this is off the top of my head and I could be
wrong. My main point is that WW2 grenades did not flatten houses, cause
huge fiery explosions, etc as we see in special effects.
Recall the case we are discussing in the movie scene were about 8-10
grenades were piled together in a confined space (an air shaft) and then
a live one was dropped down the shaft on top of them. So range was not
a factor, and the initial explosion was contained in the shaft, which
might make it more likely that the others would explode.
xyzzy
2005-04-26 18:55:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ike
Post by SNORKY
Just saw the end of it on WGN. Still a great movie.
The question I have is this: in the scene where they toss the
"unpulled" grenades down the shaft, would a "pulled" grenade later
tossed in really have that much affect on the "unpulled" grenades
already down there? I'm thinking they would supply additional
shrapnel, but wouldn't explode. (In the movie, they caused a huge
explosion.)
Am I right?
As for the explosion- I think the umpteen jerry-cans of gas helped.
Also- I was always under the impression a grenade *will* explode
sympathetically- I've seen (WWII)pics of stick grenades being tied/taped
into a bunch to increase the effect.
But remember the grenades and gas were dropped down a shaft that had a
grating as the bottom,so the gas would have dripped through. I don't
think the gas would have contributed to the explosion, but it probably
would have ignited because of the explosion and burned the people in the
bomb shelter.
xyzzy
2005-04-26 18:07:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by SNORKY
Just saw the end of it on WGN. Still a great movie.
The question I have is this: in the scene where they toss the
"unpulled" grenades down the shaft, would a "pulled" grenade later
tossed in really have that much affect on the "unpulled" grenades
already down there? I'm thinking they would supply additional
shrapnel, but wouldn't explode. (In the movie, they caused a huge
explosion.)
Am I right?
don't forget, in that movie the stoopid nazis also had an ammunition
dump in the basement, right next to their bomn shelter.

Still one of the greatest guy movies of all times, ranking up there with
the Godfather series

"Everybody's slipping on soap around here"
Loading...