|
Post by Refugee on Jul 23, 2005 11:32:32 GMT
Still can't see it but I did notice a telegraph pole on fire infront of a house.
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Jul 24, 2005 13:14:44 GMT
Still can't see it but I did notice a telegraph pole on fire infront of a house. Did you see the burning building in the snapshot I sent you?
|
|
|
Post by Refugee on Jul 24, 2005 13:22:42 GMT
Yes I did thanks, did you get my little thankyou reply? I was looking at the wrong side of the road lol. I'm dissapointed, I cant believe they let that into the final cut.
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Jul 24, 2005 13:59:14 GMT
Here's a blooper... See this picture... (Not just mindless Battle Porn btw) Notice how close that Soldier with the Launcher is to the M1 Abrams, well apparently in 'real life' he'd be killed. Here's an image to explain... Here's the bit detailing why... The temperature of the M1's exhaust may be over 1,700 degrees. Soldiers following behind the tank must be to the side of the exhaust grill or at a safe distance away if they are moving directly behind it.
The overpressure from the 120mm cannon can kill a dismounted infantryman within a 90° arc extending from the muzzle of the gun tube out to 200 meters.
From 200 to 1,000 meters along the line of fire, on a frontage of about 400 meters, dismounted infantry must be aware of the danger from discarding sabot petals, which can kill or seriously injure personnel.So in short that Soldier would've been burnt, defeaned and possibly hit by a discarding shell Here's a link to the actual web page www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/M1.htmlJust check the bit that says 'Notes' for the full story. The M1 is the tank, yeah?, Im not into war stuff but I can clearly see that its NOT the M1 tank firing, its the chappie to the right with the launcher.
|
|
|
Post by Refugee on Jul 24, 2005 14:07:26 GMT
HC's right, the tanks plough straight past in the film and start firing after they have cleared the troops.
|
|
|
Post by <[Iron Man]> on Jul 25, 2005 12:01:29 GMT
It's just i thought i saw the Tank firing it's Main Gun in that sequence. Could be wrong of course.
|
|
|
Post by Refugee on Jul 25, 2005 12:41:09 GMT
Any one of us could be wrong or right about it (the tank), its hard to tell with fast moving explosion type sequences.
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Jul 25, 2005 15:35:51 GMT
I just checked the scene again it the tank does not fire
|
|
|
Post by <[Iron Man]> on Jul 25, 2005 20:16:30 GMT
My bad It's possible the Tank fired it machinegun instead, the one just next to the Main Gun. It would've been strange if Spielberg had overlooked what happened, considering he used real Soldiers too.
|
|
|
Post by Gnorn on Jul 25, 2005 21:40:34 GMT
My bad It's possible the Tank fired it machinegun instead, the one just next to the Main Gun. It would've been strange if Spielberg had overlooked what i happened, considering he used real Soldiers too. So, basically, we now can start a thread called "Bloopers in IM's post" ?? -Gnorn
|
|
|
Post by <[Iron Man]> on Jul 25, 2005 23:54:00 GMT
My bad It's possible the Tank fired it machinegun instead, the one just next to the Main Gun. It would've been strange if Spielberg had overlooked what i happened, considering he used real Soldiers too. So, basically, we now can start a thread called "Bloopers in IM's post" ?? -Gnorn Your time will come mwahahaha Fancy a pint at the Old Vic's ?
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Aug 6, 2005 9:14:40 GMT
Iron Man: Thanx muchly! I'm quite impressed with the amount of data you were able to dig up. (Your new avatar is nice too!)
A Faraday cage is basically just a framework of metal which will deflect a lightning bolt aimed at something inside it. A hard-topped car (i.e., not a convertible) will do just fine at saving you from a lightning bolt, so long as you're not touching bare metal when the bolt hits. The car's frame acts as a Faraday cage.
This is quite different from the shielding they put inside computers, for instance. Those are full-coverage metal boxes with a minimum of holes in them. The data I found on EMP didn't specify why a Faraday cage won't protect the contents, but I'm guessing it's because the metal bars of a Faraday cage don't "attract" the high-energy particles from the EMP the way they attract lightning. The EMP particles-- I'm guessing-- zip right thru the spaces between the bars and zap whatever is inside.
|
|
|
Post by lanceradvanced on Aug 7, 2005 13:03:07 GMT
Basically from my understanding the 'effects' persist as long as the EMP is still around, and has not already been grounded/discharged. That's why a SEMP (Surface ElectroMagentic Pulse) detonation would have a more limited effect and range. Compared to HEMP (High-altitude ElectroMagnetic Pulse) detonation which covers a wider area, that takes longer to be grounded because of the altitude. Not only that, if it was detonated in Space for instance, the Magnetic Field of the Earth would spread the EMP even further, perhaps 'trapping' it, although i'm no expert on EMP.
|
|
|
Post by <[Iron Man]> on Aug 7, 2005 22:46:12 GMT
EMP doesn't linger, it really -can't- because it's a wave of EM radiation, like gamma, and x-rays and microwaves, it comes, and it goes, the diffrence between SEMP, and EMP is pretty much that of line of sight. The radiation passes through metal, striking atoms and knocking electrons free, causing random electric current, and possibly over voltages, the more metal exposed to the EMP, the higher the current generated, making powerlines a cause of enough overvoltage to blow fuses, and otherwise damage sensitive electronic components.. the devicewould be inoperable untill the componts are replaced, assuming of course that the spares didn't take the same kind of damage. You can sheild your devices from damage, but any sheilding of a net, or cage type construction might prove useless, as the radiation passes through the gaps in the screen to hit the object inside... In the end though, the vunrablity of any given peice of electronics depends on how sensitive it is to stray current and overvoltages I did doubt my comment on EMP being 'trapped', but as i said i'm no expert. In simple terms yes the difference between SEMP & HEMP is line of sight. A HEMP discharge is more favourable especially at high altitude, since there is more area for the EMP to spread, hence more destructive. For protection against EMP metallic boxes such as these ones might suffice... Obviously if a computer or sensitive electronics were stored in such boxes/cases then they must not touch the metallic interior, or not be encased in a way in which an EMP wave could connect to and damage the components. So if you had a chipboard, then some form of insulator or non-conducting material would need to act as a 'buffer' in my opinion. This is why on the site i specified it uses the term 'Faraday Box', as it seems a more effective way of protecting electronics. So in essence the principle of the Faraday Cage is adequate, except you need total instead of partial protection. This in my view is why vehicles have been fairly resistant in EMP simulators run by the U.S Military. Since the frame and bonnet/hood acts somewhat as protection. Here's the site again for reference... www.aussurvivalist.com/nuclear/empprotection.htmAlso here's an interesting excerpt from Wikipedia about High Voltage insulators that are made of porcelain & composite materials... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulator#High_voltage_insulatorsEnjoy folks
|
|
|
Post by Moorkey on Aug 19, 2005 16:35:17 GMT
Since we are on the subject of bloopers, during the battle scene where Robin (is it robin?) legs it over the hill, we see attack helicopters overhead.
These helicopters appear to be Apache attack helicopters. Except with the blatant omission of landing gear.
The apache has fixed (not retractable) Single wheel fixed strut landing gear positioned below the cockpit.
Someone I said this to at work said they were Cobras. Once again, these have fixed skid landding gear, which is also omitted.
Also, if a shell went of next to the cameraman's head, why isn't his body riddled with shrapnel?
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Aug 20, 2005 21:00:48 GMT
These helicopters appear to be Apache attack helicopters. Except with the blatant omission of landing gear. I would guess they are Comanche helicopters: www4.army.mil/ocpa/uploads/large/rah660032004-02-23.jpg[quote author=moorkey board=newfilm thread=1121398600 post=1124469317]Someone I said this to at work said they were Cobras. Once again, these have fixed skid landding gear, which is also omitted.[/quote] Cobras are Vietnam-era vehicles. Not likely to still be in service today. Also, if a shell went of next to the cameraman's head, why isn't his body riddled with shrapnel? Is this really that hard to explain? Here are some possible explanations. If you think about it, you can probably come up with more. A) The shell was not the type that is designed to throw out shrapnel; or B) sheer luck; or C) the explosion wasn't as close as the dialogue indicated; or D) there was a wall, vehicle or other obstruction which shielded his body; or E) the explosion wasn't a shell at all (these are civilians after all, not military personnel); or F) some combination of the above.
|
|
|
Post by Moorkey on Aug 26, 2005 8:52:06 GMT
Not meaning to sound too heated and confrontational here, Lensman (which I am not in the slightest.)
But...
Point 1. They are definately not Comanche helicopters. Being in the military myself, and a bit of a supremo in military aircraft recognition (sorry for piping myself onboard), I looked closely at that one. (You did have a valid point there, though). I could list the details but It would be exhaustive and need I say, confrontational. (Quick example. From memory, the helos in the film had tail rotors, where the Comanche had a shrouded fan, similar in sorts to the Gazelle helicopter.)
Point 2. Cobras are still in service with the US forces. Granted, the AH-1 Huey-Cobra, from the Vietnam era, is well out of service (there were plenty in an aircraft graveyard I visited in America last month). So, once again, valid point. However, The AH-1W, and AH-1Z Supercobra helicopter is still in service and was due to be replaced by the Comanche LHX, until the Comanche was cancelled.
and finally, Point 3. You are right. I didn't put enough thought into the shell theory. Maybe distance played a factor, maybe it was a SABOT (armor piercing, therefore not fragmentation) round. Thanks for pointing out my faux pas. BZ
|
|
|
Post by <[Iron Man]> on Aug 26, 2005 15:46:37 GMT
Long time no see guys, just come back from a nice holiday in sunny Florida!
Hey Moorkey, i'm fairly sure they're Apache Gunships. It's common for films to make little mistakes. Such as a missing landing gear, incorrect terminology or a bogus badge insignia. I think it's a forgiveable mistake though.
|
|
|
Post by ArmoredTrackLayer on Aug 26, 2005 23:12:06 GMT
The cobra is most certainly still in service, the AH1-Z just got introduced to the marine corp not too long ago actually, that helo's got some life legs.
|
|
|
Post by Moorkey on Sept 4, 2005 6:03:04 GMT
Too right the Cobra has life legs! Seeing one still sends tingles up my dad's spine. He was in the Australian Army during Vietnam.
Also, in reply to Iron Man...
Hope you had a fun, if hassle-free holiday.
My bug about the little bloopers is if toy look at the end of the end credits there is an exhaustive list of military units used as consultants, or simply given thanks to. Surely with one of the world's finest militaries helping you out, you should really spot something so small.
However, you are right in that it is a relatively small mistake in what is a largely flawless movie, and therefore slightly forgivable.
|
|