Frit0 Bandit0 Posted March 16, 2010 Author Share Posted March 16, 2010 Saginaw was one of many companies that churned out cabines. (CARBINES) 2nd force recon retired weapons instructor retired (and brother at arms) @ (Devgru) informed me of the Saginaw (he owns one as well) and of the M50 which was a 45cal....(as we discussed the movie) Interesting footage Guadalcanal (4/4) - Battlefront see a Thompson ? @ 1:00 mark (besides the live footage of combat check the weapons you see as well and the camouflage the Japanese are wearing...) My main point of contention was the march through the jungle in the movie never showed them being under sniper fire .. or any of the hand to hand...but they managed a friendly fire seen of a doc My comments aren't about the real men or what really transpired just the way they are portrayed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted March 16, 2010 Author Share Posted March 16, 2010 M! Garand, The m1 sakinaw actually it's a Saginaw (carbine already field tested and used by the Raiders and Paramarines), The Thompkins um that would be a THompson (I don't know about that magazine clip/maybe), and the M50 which replaces the Tommy Gun the m50, especially with the folding stock does look like a carbine. the m3 replaces/supplements the THompson color] (was issued to the 1st in New Zealand prior to Gaudal...guess it can look like an M1 carbine, from a movie point) One point I thought rediculous was when those Bozo's decided to go to the shore and watch the Japanese ships off shore...Who by the way were looking right back at them and saying in Japanese "look at those Bozo's on the beach". Read Leckies book: Helmet for my pillow Dude use bold and not red / for me it's easier to read Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted March 16, 2010 Author Share Posted March 16, 2010 For a starting point...Know what a fire team is, how many men are in it, and what weapon each one carries.... That would be a good prerequisite for those who don't know and want to discuss weapons issued and used Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dib Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 For a starting point...Know what a fire team is, how many men are in it, and what weapon each one carries.... That would be a good prerequisite for those who don't know and want to discuss weapons issued and used Yeah, like Sakinaws and Thompkins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 So that means it never happened? Ever? To any officer? In the First Marine Division, on Guadalcanal? Probably not. Though its first time in battle, that unit had veteran leadership, particularly by early-war standards. As small as the Tenaru River action was, and as well-handled the Marines were there, I doubt it happened at all there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 My main point of contention was the march through the jungle in the movie never showed them being under sniper fire .. or any of the hand to hand...but they managed a friendly fire seen of a doc You wouldn't expect them to be sniped at that early in the battle anyway. Guadalcanal was occupied by low-quality garrison troops and Korean laborers (slaves, basically) when the Marines went ashore. Not combat troops. The frequency of sniper fire tends to be overstated anyway - much like submarine fears in WWI, where every spot of foam was a periscope wake, the randomness and unexpectedness of sniper fire magnified the perception of it until soldiers and Marines imagined a sniper in "every" tree. Funny thing is, the Japanese soldier saw an American or Australian sniper "in every tree" too, even though it was decidedly NOT an Allied tactic to snipe from treetop (good way to get killed, really). I'll bet you the producers of The Pacific get that wrong, too. The stress and fear of the threat of snipers was very real, even if they themselves were infrequent. Five bucks says they can't portray the stress and fear without an actual sniper shooting - basically, I'm betting they can't portray a jungle patrol even close to anything realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dib Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 In the First Marine Division, on Guadalcanal? Probably not. Though its first time in battle, that unit had veteran leadership, particularly by early-war standards. As small as the Tenaru River action was, and as well-handled the Marines were there, I doubt it happened at all there. Where would the 'veteran' officers have recieved their combat experience? NCO's maybe from WW1 but this is doubtful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted March 16, 2010 Author Share Posted March 16, 2010 Yeah, like Sakinaws and Thompkins. Damn did I type that? I guess I did...sorry for confusion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted March 16, 2010 Author Share Posted March 16, 2010 You wouldn't expect them to be sniped at that early in the battle anyway. Guadalcanal was occupied by low-quality garrison troops and Korean laborers (slaves, basically) when the Marines went ashore. Not combat troops. The frequency of sniper fire tends to be overstated anyway - much like submarine fears in WWI, where every spot of foam was a periscope wake, the randomness and unexpectedness of sniper fire magnified the perception of it until soldiers and Marines imagined a sniper in "every" tree. Funny thing is, the Japanese soldier saw an American or Australian sniper "in every tree" too, even though it was decidedly NOT an Allied tactic to snipe from treetop (good way to get killed, really). I'll bet you the producers of The Pacific get that wrong, too. The stress and fear of the threat of snipers was very real, even if they themselves were infrequent. Five bucks says they can't portray the stress and fear without an actual sniper shooting - basically, I'm betting they can't portray a jungle patrol even close to anything realistic. Exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Where would the 'veteran' officers have recieved their combat experience? NCO's maybe from WW1 but this is doubtful. Haiti, Nicaragua, Puerto Rico. A good number of officers and senior NCOs had been posted in China, and had seen the Japanese at work first-hand. Plus, it was a tight-knit and well-trained force, with career officers and NCOs. Don't underestimate the effects of unit cohesion and esprit de corps, even in the absence of battle experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted March 16, 2010 Author Share Posted March 16, 2010 Jesus Christ Tom how in the hell are so knowledgeable ... You read like you've authored some books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 I'm sure it was. It's a particular nit-pick of mine in any film - compressing reality to make it more dramatic on film. I know. It's my own personal view on it - I've studied the subject for decades, so gross (as I define it) historical inaccuracy bugs the **** out of me. And particularly Tom Hanks' infliction of it on the viewer - he very much wants people to think of him as someone who honors history, then goes on ahead and butchers the living **** out of it. And yes, there's a valid point to be made that if one wants extreme technical accuracy one should just watch documentaries like V for Victory. Which misses the point: to get so wrong the basic technical aspects is to completely misrepresent the environment the soldiers fought in. You don't get a sense of the loneliness of standing watch on the line when fighting positions are separated by about four feet, or the complete feeling of abandonment the Marines had on Guadalcanal after Admiral Fletcher unassed the area by throwing out a single "The Navy left us!" line (I literally just now was discussing that with a Marine in the office - he's bitter about that decision, and he was born thirty years after the battle), or the absolute confusion in facing a Japanese night attack. To take dramatic license to convey feelings that are better conveyed by NOT taking dramatic license is an idiotic production decision - and yet, so typical of Hanks' and Speilberg's nonsense. It must suck to be you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Jesus Christ Tom how in the hell are so knowledgeable ... You read like you've authored some books. I read a lot, of serious-type history. I've said here before: you people here don't want to know what I read. It must suck to be you. No, not really. Aside from the whole "Bills and Sabres fan" thing, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted March 16, 2010 Author Share Posted March 16, 2010 I read a lot, of serious-type history. I've said here before: you people here don't want to know what I read. In DC....Think Tank / Policy Institute? Directly or indirectly is what I'm assuming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 In DC....Think Tank / Policy Institute? Directly or indirectly is what I'm assuming No...computer programmer. Amateur (and very serious) military historian. I read PhD dissertations for fun. I'm just weird that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted March 16, 2010 Author Share Posted March 16, 2010 No...computer programmer. Amateur (and very serious) military historian. I read PhD dissertations for fun. I'm just weird that way. I call bull ****...but okay if you insist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous Guy Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 I call bull ****...but okay if you insist. WARNING: DO NOT FEED THE EGO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 WARNING: DO NOT FEED THE EGO. To late. Next will be a in depth analysis of Douglas MacArthur's pipe tobacco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted March 16, 2010 Author Share Posted March 16, 2010 WARNING: DO NOT FEED THE EGO. The hours of laughter I've had reading his commentary with connor and hedd I would have paid for...which I did, I donated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 WARNING: DO NOT FEED THE EGO. Hmmm. Philosophical conundrum: if The Ego receives praise from people that The Ego itself thinks are beneath it, does that ultimately feed The Ego? I think the answer to that question, from The Ego's point of view, can only be "I could have done a better job producing The Pacific than Tom Hanks." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts