Talk:Assembly - Revision history

Wuzh: Wuzh moved page Talk:Assembly (Ji jie hao) to Talk:Assembly: I'm really not sure why the pinyin is needed. Assembly is the film's international name.

2018-08-30T03:17:56Z

Wuzh moved page Talk:Assembly (Ji jie hao) to Talk:Assembly: I'm really not sure why the pinyin is needed. Assembly is the film's international name.

← Older revision	Revision as of 03:17, 30 August 2018
(No difference)

Maskedweasel: /* ZB 26 actually a Bren? */

2014-05-29T20:50:37Z

ZB 26 actually a Bren?

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:50, 29 May 2014
Line 21:		Line 21:
	From the screencaps it seems obvious to me that this is a Chinese Bren gun. The gas return cylinder is too short with the bipod mounted at its end also the barrel is not finned. The difference is evident when comparing the screencaps to the ZB 26 picture, the ZB's gas return cylinder runs the length of the barrel. Canada manufactured significant quantities of these Brens for the Chinese government in 7.92mm (which meant using a straight magazine like the later NATO version). As such this weapon is anacronistic as it was supplied during WW2. I attach a link which mentions the Chinese Bren.		From the screencaps it seems obvious to me that this is a Chinese Bren gun. The gas return cylinder is too short with the bipod mounted at its end also the barrel is not finned. The difference is evident when comparing the screencaps to the ZB 26 picture, the ZB's gas return cylinder runs the length of the barrel. Canada manufactured significant quantities of these Brens for the Chinese government in 7.92mm (which meant using a straight magazine like the later NATO version). As such this weapon is anacronistic as it was supplied during WW2. I attach a link which mentions the Chinese Bren.
	http://www.koreanwaronline.com/arms/bren.htm		http://www.koreanwaronline.com/arms/bren.htm

			Here's a rough screencap that verifies the above.

			[[Image:Asmbren.jpg\|thumb\|none\|500px\|]]

Maskedweasel: /* ZB 26 actually a Bren? */ new section

2014-04-29T16:04:41Z

ZB 26 actually a Bren?: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:04, 29 April 2014
Line 15:		Line 15:

	If you guys havent seen this movie yet I do recommend it. Although it was produced in China, taking place in a critical (and often propaganda-laden part of their history), the movie is fairly non-political. Its a fairly neutral war-movie in the style of "Private Ryan": Meaning its all about the soldiers who suffered and died rather than promoting any cause. [[User:Dudster32\|Dudster32]] ([[User talk:Dudster32\|talk]]) 16:38, 8 December 2012 (EST)		If you guys havent seen this movie yet I do recommend it. Although it was produced in China, taking place in a critical (and often propaganda-laden part of their history), the movie is fairly non-political. Its a fairly neutral war-movie in the style of "Private Ryan": Meaning its all about the soldiers who suffered and died rather than promoting any cause. [[User:Dudster32\|Dudster32]] ([[User talk:Dudster32\|talk]]) 16:38, 8 December 2012 (EST)

			== ZB 26 actually a Bren? ==

			I made this point on the Flowers of war page and the same weapon appears to have been used here. The bottom screencap seems to verify this. I'll copy the previous post:
			From the screencaps it seems obvious to me that this is a Chinese Bren gun. The gas return cylinder is too short with the bipod mounted at its end also the barrel is not finned. The difference is evident when comparing the screencaps to the ZB 26 picture, the ZB's gas return cylinder runs the length of the barrel. Canada manufactured significant quantities of these Brens for the Chinese government in 7.92mm (which meant using a straight magazine like the later NATO version). As such this weapon is anacronistic as it was supplied during WW2. I attach a link which mentions the Chinese Bren.
			http://www.koreanwaronline.com/arms/bren.htm

Dudster32: /* Good movie! :) */ new section

2012-12-08T21:38:47Z

Good movie! :): new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:38, 8 December 2012
Line 11:		Line 11:

	Personally I think it's kind of funny that they are using a DSHK mocked up to be an M2 .50 when it is usually the reverse!!! --[[User:Charon68\|Charon68]] 00:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)		Personally I think it's kind of funny that they are using a DSHK mocked up to be an M2 .50 when it is usually the reverse!!! --[[User:Charon68\|Charon68]] 00:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

			== Good movie! :) ==

			If you guys havent seen this movie yet I do recommend it. Although it was produced in China, taking place in a critical (and often propaganda-laden part of their history), the movie is fairly non-political. Its a fairly neutral war-movie in the style of "Private Ryan": Meaning its all about the soldiers who suffered and died rather than promoting any cause. [[User:Dudster32\|Dudster32]] ([[User talk:Dudster32\|talk]]) 16:38, 8 December 2012 (EST)

Charon68: /* Sub machine guns */

2010-08-09T00:14:04Z

Sub machine guns

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:14, 9 August 2010
Line 8:		Line 8:
	:The Lend-Lease program? I know we made Mosins for them for a little while, so why not give them Enfields too?-[[User:S&Wshooter\|S&Wshooter]] 21:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)		:The Lend-Lease program? I know we made Mosins for them for a little while, so why not give them Enfields too?-[[User:S&Wshooter\|S&Wshooter]] 21:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
	::Yeah, probably. It seems weird they would arm Chinese Army soldiers disguised as ROK soldiers with Enfields though.--[[User:Oliveira\|Oliveira]] 14:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)		::Yeah, probably. It seems weird they would arm Chinese Army soldiers disguised as ROK soldiers with Enfields though.--[[User:Oliveira\|Oliveira]] 14:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


			Personally I think it's kind of funny that they are using a DSHK mocked up to be an M2 .50 when it is usually the reverse!!! --[[User:Charon68\|Charon68]] 00:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Oliveira at 14:52, 5 November 2009

2009-11-05T14:52:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:52, 5 November 2009
Line 7:		Line 7:

	:The Lend-Lease program? I know we made Mosins for them for a little while, so why not give them Enfields too?-[[User:S&Wshooter\|S&Wshooter]] 21:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)		:The Lend-Lease program? I know we made Mosins for them for a little while, so why not give them Enfields too?-[[User:S&Wshooter\|S&Wshooter]] 21:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
			::Yeah, probably. It seems weird they would arm Chinese Army soldiers disguised as ROK soldiers with Enfields though.--[[User:Oliveira\|Oliveira]] 14:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

S&Wshooter at 21:29, 4 November 2009

2009-11-04T21:29:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:29, 4 November 2009
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Note that the PPS has a curved magazine, a barrel with more ventilation holes and an underfolding stock when compared to a Carl Gustav. --[[User:Markit\|Markit]] 16:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)		Note that the PPS has a curved magazine, a barrel with more ventilation holes and an underfolding stock when compared to a Carl Gustav. --[[User:Markit\|Markit]] 16:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
	:Yeah. I was wrong about the PPS. Sorry about that. Also, where would Communist troops get M1917 Enfields?--[[User:Oliveira\|Oliveira]] 18:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)		:Yeah. I was wrong about the PPS. Sorry about that. Also, where would Communist troops get M1917 Enfields?--[[User:Oliveira\|Oliveira]] 18:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

			:The Lend-Lease program? I know we made Mosins for them for a little while, so why not give them Enfields too?-[[User:S&Wshooter\|S&Wshooter]] 21:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Oliveira at 18:08, 4 November 2009

2009-11-04T18:08:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:08, 4 November 2009
Line 4:		Line 4:
	[[Image:Assembly-PPS-4.jpg\|thumb\|none\|500px\|]]		[[Image:Assembly-PPS-4.jpg\|thumb\|none\|500px\|]]
	Note that the PPS has a curved magazine, a barrel with more ventilation holes and an underfolding stock when compared to a Carl Gustav. --[[User:Markit\|Markit]] 16:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)		Note that the PPS has a curved magazine, a barrel with more ventilation holes and an underfolding stock when compared to a Carl Gustav. --[[User:Markit\|Markit]] 16:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
			:Yeah. I was wrong about the PPS. Sorry about that. Also, where would Communist troops get M1917 Enfields?--[[User:Oliveira\|Oliveira]] 18:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Markit: /* Sub machine guns */

2009-11-04T16:30:39Z

Sub machine guns

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:30, 4 November 2009
Line 3:		Line 3:
	:You are probably right on the first point, but this disproves your second:		:You are probably right on the first point, but this disproves your second:
	[[Image:Assembly-PPS-4.jpg\|thumb\|none\|500px\|]]		[[Image:Assembly-PPS-4.jpg\|thumb\|none\|500px\|]]
	Note that the PPS has a curved magazine, a barrel with more ventilation holes and an underfolding stock when compared to a Carl Gustav.		Note that the PPS has a curved magazine, a barrel with more ventilation holes and an underfolding stock when compared to a Carl Gustav. --[[User:Markit\|Markit]] 16:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Markit: /* Sub machine guns */

2009-11-04T16:30:20Z

Sub machine guns

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:30, 4 November 2009
Line 2:		Line 2:
	The M1A1 Thompson is an M1921 or M1928 not an M1A1. Note how it has the flash hider and the Charging handle is on top of the gun not the right side. That PPS-43 also looks more like a Carl Gustav sub machine gun to me.--[[User:Oliveira\|Oliveira]] 16:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)		The M1A1 Thompson is an M1921 or M1928 not an M1A1. Note how it has the flash hider and the Charging handle is on top of the gun not the right side. That PPS-43 also looks more like a Carl Gustav sub machine gun to me.--[[User:Oliveira\|Oliveira]] 16:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
	:You are probably right on the first point, but this disproves your second:		:You are probably right on the first point, but this disproves your second:
	[[Image:Assembly-PPS-4.jpg\|thumb\|none\|500px\|]		[[Image:Assembly-PPS-4.jpg\|thumb\|none\|500px\|]]
	Note that the PPS has a curved magazine, a barrel with more ventilation holes and an underfolding stock when compared to a Carl Gustav.		Note that the PPS has a curved magazine, a barrel with more ventilation holes and an underfolding stock when compared to a Carl Gustav.

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:14, 9 August 2010
Line 8:		Line 8:
	:The Lend-Lease program? I know we made Mosins for them for a little while, so why not give them Enfields too?-[[User:S&Wshooter\|S&Wshooter]] 21:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)		:The Lend-Lease program? I know we made Mosins for them for a little while, so why not give them Enfields too?-[[User:S&Wshooter\|S&Wshooter]] 21:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
	::Yeah, probably. It seems weird they would arm Chinese Army soldiers disguised as ROK soldiers with Enfields though.--[[User:Oliveira\|Oliveira]] 14:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)		::Yeah, probably. It seems weird they would arm Chinese Army soldiers disguised as ROK soldiers with Enfields though.--[[User:Oliveira\|Oliveira]] 14:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


			Personally I think it's kind of funny that they are using a DSHK mocked up to be an M2 .50 when it is usually the reverse!!! --[[User:Charon68\|Charon68]] 00:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:29, 4 November 2009
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Note that the PPS has a curved magazine, a barrel with more ventilation holes and an underfolding stock when compared to a Carl Gustav. --[[User:Markit\|Markit]] 16:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)		Note that the PPS has a curved magazine, a barrel with more ventilation holes and an underfolding stock when compared to a Carl Gustav. --[[User:Markit\|Markit]] 16:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
	:Yeah. I was wrong about the PPS. Sorry about that. Also, where would Communist troops get M1917 Enfields?--[[User:Oliveira\|Oliveira]] 18:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)		:Yeah. I was wrong about the PPS. Sorry about that. Also, where would Communist troops get M1917 Enfields?--[[User:Oliveira\|Oliveira]] 18:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

			:The Lend-Lease program? I know we made Mosins for them for a little while, so why not give them Enfields too?-[[User:S&Wshooter\|S&Wshooter]] 21:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:08, 4 November 2009
Line 4:		Line 4:
	[[Image:Assembly-PPS-4.jpg\|thumb\|none\|500px\|]]		[[Image:Assembly-PPS-4.jpg\|thumb\|none\|500px\|]]
	Note that the PPS has a curved magazine, a barrel with more ventilation holes and an underfolding stock when compared to a Carl Gustav. --[[User:Markit\|Markit]] 16:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)		Note that the PPS has a curved magazine, a barrel with more ventilation holes and an underfolding stock when compared to a Carl Gustav. --[[User:Markit\|Markit]] 16:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
			:Yeah. I was wrong about the PPS. Sorry about that. Also, where would Communist troops get M1917 Enfields?--[[User:Oliveira\|Oliveira]] 18:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)