RE: You have got to be kidding me.

RE: You have got to be kidding me. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

Joe D. -> RE: You have got to be kidding me. (3/30/2009 4:50:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gladiatt quote: ORIGINAL: Bobthehatchit I’d rather watch Battle of the Bulge, than the film that shall not be mentioned! Battke of the Bulge is awful. Not a real wwII tank. Not a real character name for the story ... Even Eisenhower complained abt BotB. BTW, a programmer actually did a Combat Mission scenario of that film's final tank battle, a battle that never actually happened. However, I couldn't bring myself to play it.

jeffk3510 -> RE: You have got to be kidding me. (3/30/2009 5:12:25 PM)
I love the movie Patton, even though the tanks are not accurate.... however I think that would be tough to make everything accurate down to the last detail....

Shark7 -> RE: You have got to be kidding me. (3/30/2009 5:32:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jeffk3510 I love the movie Patton, even though the tanks are not accurate.... however I think that would be tough to make everything accurate down to the last detail.... The reason why the tanks aren't accurate is that there really aren't that many M4 Shermans left operational in the world. A few in museums etc. And with the Army's cooperation to get the tanks, you get whatever the Army has available at the time, in the case of the movie Patton it was either M-47s or M-60s (been a while since I saw the movie so I can't remember which). However, with modern computer graphics as they are, there really isn't any reason to show big battle scenes with real tanks. If the movie Patton was made today, you would likely use CG for the tank battles.

rtrapasso -> RE: You have got to be kidding me. (3/30/2009 5:35:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 quote: ORIGINAL: jeffk3510 I love the movie Patton, even though the tanks are not accurate.... however I think that would be tough to make everything accurate down to the last detail.... The reason why the tanks aren't accurate is that there really aren't that many M4 Shermans left operational in the world. A few in museums etc. And with the Army's cooperation to get the tanks, you get whatever the Army has available at the time, in the case of the movie Patton it was either M-47s or M-60s (been a while since I saw the movie so I can't remember which). True enough, but even the Germans during the war made their tank look like Shermans by use of plywood (on occasion)... it was apparently convincing enough to fool Allied troops.

Ambassador -> RE: You have got to be kidding me. (3/30/2009 5:42:14 PM)
Those were M-47, quite fittingly.[;)]

jeffk3510 -> RE: You have got to be kidding me. (3/30/2009 5:52:01 PM)
That is what I was getting at. I said they were not accurate, but understand that it is tough to be accurate in this situation, so I don't consider that a bad part of the movie.... Thanks [:)]

Charles2222 -> RE: You have got to be kidding me. (3/30/2009 7:33:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jeffk3510 Haha... I also like when theyre in that car, and a Jap plane strafes the car, and the result is a little bit of cosmetic damage, and they ride on like nothing just happened... Wouldnt the car errupt in flames ???? lol I can't tell you the realistic ratio of strafed automobiles bursting into flames, but on that one incident it might had been strangely enough realistic. You could always go get a whole load of firarms and see if you can catch one on fire easily, remembering of course to get aircraft trajectory into the bargain. Since hollywood gets off on a ridiculous amount of explosions, especially of automoblies (every rolled car explodes for example), I would think that when something doesnt' explode, they may had actually done some thing a little less for sensation and a little more for realism, but, then again, jillions of bullets can fly and nothing happens[image]http://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/image/article/854/854985/rambo-20080227040659062.jpg[/image] as far as drama is concerned too.

rtrapasso -> RE: You have got to be kidding me. (3/30/2009 7:43:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Charles_22 quote: ORIGINAL: jeffk3510 Haha... I also like when theyre in that car, and a Jap plane strafes the car, and the result is a little bit of cosmetic damage, and they ride on like nothing just happened... Wouldnt the car errupt in flames ???? lol I can't tell you the realistic ratio of strafed automobiles bursting into flames, but on that one incident it might had been strangely enough realistic. You could always go get a whole load of firarms and see if you can catch one on fire easily, remembering of course to get aircraft trajectory into the bargain. Since hollywood gets off on a ridiculous amount of explosions, especially of automoblies (every rolled car explodes for example), I would think that when something doesnt' explode, they may had actually done some thing a little less for sensation and a little more for realism, but, then again, jillions of bullets can fly and nothing happens[image]http://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/image/article/854/854985/rambo-20080227040659062.jpg[/image] as far as drama is concerned too. i had a video tape at one time that showed the actual effect of gunfire on different objects, including automobiles... it was almost impossible to get a car's gas tank to explode using everything up to and including .50 APIT (armor piercing incendiary tracer) rounds. Of course, 20 mm. explosive shells from a Zero's cannon might do the trick...[;)] EDIT: So why to plane's gas tanks catch on fire when hit by similar rounds? i suspect it was to do with octane rating, and more importantly the fact that the fuel would aerosolize when coming out of bullet holes at 100-400 mph, making it a lot easier to set on fire.

jeffk3510 -> RE: You have got to be kidding me. (3/30/2009 8:11:53 PM)
So explain the horse and buggy on Family Guy? [:D]

mdiehl -> RE: You have got to be kidding me. (3/30/2009 8:37:12 PM)
Hollywood rarely misses an opportunity to mess up a film involving WW2 and Hawaii. An absurdly improbable hackneyed romance plot twist seems to be part of the formula. If that which cannot be named cannot be named, then we must also include that other which ought not to be named (Midway) among the unnamable. Lt. Garth - "Dad, I've fallen in love with a Nisei and I'm gonna marry her." Miss Sakura - "Yeah, Like, I'm an American, dammit!" Capt. Garth [Oh my effing head I can't believe this is happening to me!] "Harry, I'm BEGGING you." Adm. Pearson - "OK, I can do something for you...." Miss Sakura and Lt. Garth [simultaneously]- "Goodie!" Capt. Garth ['Oh, s*t!] Adm. Pearson - "Lt. Garth, you've been transferred to training duties aboard USS Wolverine*. Go pack your bags." Lt. Garth- "Uh..." Adm. Pearson - "Miss Sakura, we have an urgent need for translaters on Margaret Mead's research staff in New York City. Go pack your bags." Miss Sakura - ['The Comely Margaret Mead..?'] "Goodie!" Adm. Pearson - "Captain Garth, you've been reassigned as executive attache for catapult operations to our joint USN-Royal Navy carrier operations study group in Liverpool. Go pack your bags!"

Charles2222 -> RE: You have got to be kidding me. (3/31/2009 7:45:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso quote: ORIGINAL: Charles_22 quote: ORIGINAL: jeffk3510 Haha... I also like when theyre in that car, and a Jap plane strafes the car, and the result is a little bit of cosmetic damage, and they ride on like nothing just happened... Wouldnt the car errupt in flames ???? lol I can't tell you the realistic ratio of strafed automobiles bursting into flames, but on that one incident it might had been strangely enough realistic. You could always go get a whole load of firarms and see if you can catch one on fire easily, remembering of course to get aircraft trajectory into the bargain. Since hollywood gets off on a ridiculous amount of explosions, especially of automoblies (every rolled car explodes for example), I would think that when something doesnt' explode, they may had actually done some thing a little less for sensation and a little more for realism, but, then again, jillions of bullets can fly and nothing happens[image]http://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/image/article/854/854985/rambo-20080227040659062.jpg[/image] as far as drama is concerned too. i had a video tape at one time that showed the actual effect of gunfire on different objects, including automobiles... it was almost impossible to get a car's gas tank to explode using everything up to and including .50 APIT (armor piercing incendiary tracer) rounds. Of course, 20 mm. explosive shells from a Zero's cannon might do the trick...[;)] EDIT: So why to plane's gas tanks catch on fire when hit by similar rounds? i suspect it was to do with octane rating, and more importantly the fact that the fuel would aerosolize when coming out of bullet holes at 100-400 mph, making it a lot easier to set on fire. That sounds right, but cannons would have to be wasted in the first place, and in the second place hit a sensitive sopt.

bradfordkay -> RE: You have got to be kidding me. (4/1/2009 8:11:21 AM)
"ORIGINAL: jeffk3510 Haha... I also like when theyre in that car, and a Jap plane strafes the car, and the result is a little bit of cosmetic damage, and they ride on like nothing just happened... Wouldnt the car errupt in flames ???? lol" Possibly not IRL, but that car was about the only thing the japanese planes machine gunned in the film that didn't blow up...

Misconduct -> RE: You have got to be kidding me. (4/1/2009 4:29:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bradfordkay "ORIGINAL: jeffk3510 Haha... I also like when theyre in that car, and a Jap plane strafes the car, and the result is a little bit of cosmetic damage, and they ride on like nothing just happened... Wouldnt the car errupt in flames ???? lol" Possibly not IRL, but that car was about the only thing the japanese planes machine gunned in the film that didn't blow up... Nah it wouldn't of exploded, I was stationed out in california around time when a couple of idiot marines drove on a firing range and had their car strafed by an M-61 20mm from an F-16 fighter. I would guess a good 20+ rounds hit the SUV and none were hurt, and car did not explode. Now if an A-10 with the big 30mm hit the SUV, it would of been fubar'd. Edit: Here's a photo of what 20mm shells do from an F-16, I would think the 7.7mm guns from the japanese planes would of been ALOT less then this. [image]http://www.stalkingvenus.com/images/f-16-suv.jpg[/image]

John Lansford -> RE: You have got to be kidding me. (4/1/2009 5:39:35 PM)
I thought modern 20mm cannon shells were explosive; the ones that hit that SUV look like they were inert...

jeffk3510 -> RE: You have got to be kidding me. (4/1/2009 8:59:00 PM)
Look at those holes close to the gas cap... [8\|]

wild_Willie2 -> RE: You have got to be kidding me. (4/1/2009 9:03:51 PM)
Must have been 20mm ball training rounds, else that car and the marinese inside would have been toast...

Charles2222 -> RE: You have got to be kidding me. (4/2/2009 1:38:54 AM)
The rounds must had scared the truck into flat tires.

rtrapasso -> RE: You have got to be kidding me. (4/2/2009 2:30:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John Lansford I thought modern 20mm cannon shells were explosive; the ones that hit that SUV look like they were inert... heck, even the Japanese 20 mm. were explosive from what i've read... or at least some of them were (probably some tracer, etc. mixed in.)... i do recall reading an eyewitness account of someone describing some poor shmoe hit by a 20 mm. explosive round from a Zero that was strafing Pearl Harbor on 7 Dec... it wasn't as destructive as i would have thought, but it was enough to kill that guy.

stuman -> RE: You have got to be kidding me. (4/5/2009 7:08:24 AM)
I was going to say that given the list above of some of the things that are wrong with " TMTSNBN " it could make a fun drinking game: every time someone points out a problem, drinks all around ! But then I decided that the whole group would probably die of alcohol poisoning.

Dili -> RE: You have got to be kidding me. (4/5/2009 9:12:00 AM)
Those appear to be explosive 20mm rounds. If they were not what you would get would be a smaller hole.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.15625