| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:Jarhead (2005): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
::- I'm not absolutely positive, but I am fairly sure. Granted I am going more by today rather than 20 years ago and I'm not personally familiar with training so I can't be certain, perhaps Jcordell or someone else on here with military background can enlighten us. But, I have read a little bit about training exercises, and on a basic practical analysis, it makes sense. Safety is of course the prime concern, not just of recruits but of others; they would have to make sure that rounds won't affect other personnel in the area in addition to the recruits, lest something like what is described happening in the film happen, or worse. Of course they can have bulletproof stops/sand-bags, etc but those are certainly not fullproof. Of course blanks aren't fullproof either but they are an easier and considerably far safer way to handle it. Also, on a lesser note, I have read/heard that environmental and fiscal concerns limit the use of live ammunition considerably in training, especially these days. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 02:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC) | ::- I'm not absolutely positive, but I am fairly sure. Granted I am going more by today rather than 20 years ago and I'm not personally familiar with training so I can't be certain, perhaps Jcordell or someone else on here with military background can enlighten us. But, I have read a little bit about training exercises, and on a basic practical analysis, it makes sense. Safety is of course the prime concern, not just of recruits but of others; they would have to make sure that rounds won't affect other personnel in the area in addition to the recruits, lest something like what is described happening in the film happen, or worse. Of course they can have bulletproof stops/sand-bags, etc but those are certainly not fullproof. Of course blanks aren't fullproof either but they are an easier and considerably far safer way to handle it. Also, on a lesser note, I have read/heard that environmental and fiscal concerns limit the use of live ammunition considerably in training, especially these days. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 02:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
::Hey here is my ten year old answer! I went through basic training way back in 1986 at Fort Leonard-Wood, Missouri. Yes we did the low crawling exercise under barbed wire while the [[M60]] machine-guns fired over us with tracers. They had us do the training at night as well so we could see the tracers - very exciting. A couple caveats though. I recall the drill sergeants advising us that the machine-guns were approximately eight feet above us. So if I had stood up (I am 5'6") I would have been fine. We had a guy in the platoon (his name was Rasmussen) who was somewhere in the realm of 6'8" and ''he'' would have been fine if he stood up. I suppose if Rasmussen had jumped up into the air he might have been hit. We were also on a range meaning the machine-guns were firing downrange where the only thing in danger were trees, shrubs and rocks. It used to be this training event was something of a ritual, but I have no idea if they still do it in the Army. You need to ask a Marine what the Corp is still doing. --[[User:Jcordell|Jcordell]] ([[User talk:Jcordell|talk]]) 09:10, 18 December 2020 (EST) | |||
Actually I didn't mean this scene I meant the one at the end this one could very well be true they fire in the distance and as long as no one gets up, I doubt they would do it at the start but by the end of the training I'm sure they would be good enough not to get up like idiots | Actually I didn't mean this scene I meant the one at the end this one could very well be true they fire in the distance and as long as no one gets up, I doubt they would do it at the start but by the end of the training I'm sure they would be good enough not to get up like idiots | ||
| Line 66: | Line 68: | ||
==Not a Sniper Rifle?== | ==Not a Sniper Rifle?== | ||
I remember reading somewhere the main difference between a sniper and hunting rifle is the backup iron sights, which the M40s in this film don't have. Is that true?--[[User:Godzillafan93|That's the Way It's Done]] ([[User talk:Godzillafan93|talk]]) 14:25, 8 November 2014 (EST) | I remember reading somewhere the main difference between a sniper and hunting rifle is the backup iron sights, which the M40s in this film don't have. Is that true?--[[User:Godzillafan93|That's the Way It's Done]] ([[User talk:Godzillafan93|talk]]) 14:25, 8 November 2014 (EST) | ||
:I would imagine the primary difference is in use, hunting animals vs. hunting humans. --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk:Funkychinaman|talk]]) 16:08, 8 November 2014 (EST) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:10, 18 December 2020
I'll try to buy this movie sometime this month to screencap it. I saw it one HBO at my uncle's house and I gotta screen it ASAP. P.S. Thanks to the anonymous user who deleted my comment. -GM
- I GOT IT! Have it on this week. -GM
- I know this isn't terribly relevant for the purposes of this site, but...I thought this movie sucked. -MT2008
- I think it was okay at best. It was based on a true story so I give it the respect it deserves. It was originally a book written by Anthony Swofferd, who is the main character in the movie. I just finished screening the movie, I'll have it on soon. -GM
- Yeah, but in the hands of Sam Mendes (one of the most liberal directors working in Hollywood...no small feat!), it becomes essentially an anti-war, anti-military movie. Not that I'm saying you shouldn't screencap it (plenty of people I know, including some enlisted GIs, liked it), just saying that's how I felt. -MT2008
- I don't know about anti-military but I don't think I've ever seen a pro war movie. Some stuff has come up, I'll have to add the shots tommorow. -GM
- How's it look? Did I get everything right? I'm not a helicopter or tank pro so I may have goofed in that field. -GM
P.S. Thanks Orca for fixing the tank I.D.s. btw, what makes him using the M60E3 wrong? I don't think the M240 was issued yet and their are indeed two hatches for two gunners.
- In this instance, the M60 machine gun would be erroneous as the Loader's hatch on the real Abrams is already fitted with an M240. As I mentioned on GM's page, no versions of the Abrams have ever had an M60 installed on them, so the Loader having an M60E3 at the ready would be incorrect. I'm not trying to start any fights, just pointing out a goof in the film.Orca1 9904 08:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Orca1_9904
- ORCA, You're right. 240s were the guns next to the .50s on the top of the M1A1s. I never really thought about it since we used the M60 still in the 80s and early 90s, but I asked a Armored Div. buddy from the Gulf and he confirmed what you said. No fights here :) Arggh. Even my memory is fading!
The tanks
I must emphasize again that the fake Abrams tanks in this movie were built on Centurions, not Chieftains. Go to http://armytrucks.com/ and click on "Inventory" and you can see pictures of the company's fleet of fake "M1 Abrams". -MT2008
- Ahhhhhh yes, ever been there? ;) California sucks ass as a state, but we got a lot of cool stuff! ;) MPM2008
- I had changed it yesterday as soon as you said it. -GM
- Yep, it was just the one under the Browning M2 entry that need fixin'. -MT2008
- I had changed it yesterday as soon as you said it. -GM
- I had a look over this: they're Chieftains, not Centurions, at least the one in the picture is. The Centurion's driver's hatch is at the right-front of the hull and opens upwards, splitting in the middle; here you can see the driver poking his head out of it. The Chieftain's is as the one depicted in the movie and on their site (eg here), right underneath the main gun with a hatch that pivots to the side. Other signs of being a Chieftain include the misplaced fume extractor (Courage Under Fire's Centurbrams had it's one in the right place because the Centurion doesn't have a fume extractor, while here they have to cover up the Chieftain's real one with a fake Abrams one even though it's at the wrong end of the gun), the huge "V"-shaped splash guard (I think) that goes from in front of the driver's hatch right back to the sides of the turret ring, and the two gaps on each side for stowage boxes above the tracks that they've removed. It's a pretty convincing fake, actually, and it looks like they've dressed it with some real Abrams bits like the headlights and smoke grenade cases. Evil Tim 09:56, 29 June 2011 (CDT)
- I was wrong on one count here: Centurions later than Mark V do indeed have a fume extractor, but it's on the first third of the barrel like the Abrams rather than the last third like the Chieftain and all Chieftain vismod "Abrams" tanks. Evil Tim 11:11, 4 July 2011 (CDT)
M16A3
This is definitely not an M16A3, as it does not have a removable carry handle. (unknown Author)
M16A3 is simply an M16A2 with Full Auto instead of Burst Fire, it is not a Full Auto M16A4. User:AdAstra2009
Tape method
I have a stupid question. What's the tape method? - Shooter
- Taping up the front of the scope (leaving a small opening so it isn't rendered useless) so the glass won't glint in the sun and you won't be countersniped-S&Wshooter 00:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks - Shooter
Not to be mean , i find it funny that your names shooter , and you dont know about the tape method . but neither did i so! simmons 8492
Rock Galotti cameo?
I know "Rock" Galotti worked on Jarhead, but is this him firing the M60E3?--Ben41 09:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Firing in the air/Live ammo
firing in the air Isn't it kinda reckles since the bullets can fall down and kill someone
- Yeah but thats for really far away targets, they were what, 10 metres far way. dont think its gonna fall that close. --Smish34 20:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- - Sequences like those are often seen in war films - I'm fairly certain they actually do it in real training at times. However they do NOT actually do it with 'live' rounds though, for that very reason (among other lesser reasons). StanTheMan 23:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Really? because I remember this scene being mentioned in the audio commentary as being based on the actual training experiences of one of the Marine technical advisors. Pravda616
- - I'm not absolutely positive, but I am fairly sure. Granted I am going more by today rather than 20 years ago and I'm not personally familiar with training so I can't be certain, perhaps Jcordell or someone else on here with military background can enlighten us. But, I have read a little bit about training exercises, and on a basic practical analysis, it makes sense. Safety is of course the prime concern, not just of recruits but of others; they would have to make sure that rounds won't affect other personnel in the area in addition to the recruits, lest something like what is described happening in the film happen, or worse. Of course they can have bulletproof stops/sand-bags, etc but those are certainly not fullproof. Of course blanks aren't fullproof either but they are an easier and considerably far safer way to handle it. Also, on a lesser note, I have read/heard that environmental and fiscal concerns limit the use of live ammunition considerably in training, especially these days. StanTheMan 02:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hey here is my ten year old answer! I went through basic training way back in 1986 at Fort Leonard-Wood, Missouri. Yes we did the low crawling exercise under barbed wire while the M60 machine-guns fired over us with tracers. They had us do the training at night as well so we could see the tracers - very exciting. A couple caveats though. I recall the drill sergeants advising us that the machine-guns were approximately eight feet above us. So if I had stood up (I am 5'6") I would have been fine. We had a guy in the platoon (his name was Rasmussen) who was somewhere in the realm of 6'8" and he would have been fine if he stood up. I suppose if Rasmussen had jumped up into the air he might have been hit. We were also on a range meaning the machine-guns were firing downrange where the only thing in danger were trees, shrubs and rocks. It used to be this training event was something of a ritual, but I have no idea if they still do it in the Army. You need to ask a Marine what the Corp is still doing. --Jcordell (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2020 (EST)
Actually I didn't mean this scene I meant the one at the end this one could very well be true they fire in the distance and as long as no one gets up, I doubt they would do it at the start but by the end of the training I'm sure they would be good enough not to get up like idiots
- - Damn, all that and I didn't notice the third word in your original statement.. Bah. I guess the screencap made me think otherwise, though it had nothing to do with your post - To that end, I'm gonna separate this into another section. Anyway, the original reply said it, the way they were firing at the end, drop wouldn't begin until some distance away from them, as they're firing in the air at angle and not straight up. It still isn't recommended to just fire in the air though, but I agree those men weren't in too much danger. StanTheMan 18:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The Marines I asked all said that they did the exact same thing, crawling like that with machine gun fire shooting over their heads. It was as real as it was meant to be Excalibur01 18:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Mortar Scene
Did anyone else notice mortar explosions less than 5 feet away from Swafford? Apparently this director never heard of the word shrapnel. CarissimiRBeast
Not a Sniper Rifle?
I remember reading somewhere the main difference between a sniper and hunting rifle is the backup iron sights, which the M40s in this film don't have. Is that true?--That's the Way It's Done (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2014 (EST)
- I would imagine the primary difference is in use, hunting animals vs. hunting humans. --Funkychinaman (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2014 (EST)