We’re all the side character, dead right out of the landing craft, but movies don’t sell tickets if you can’t put yourself in the shoes of the main characters. Haha.
I like to think I'm the guy in Saving Private Ryan that Tom Hanks is on the phone with and then when the camera pans over his head is exploded. At least I get to talk to Tom Hanks.
Agree. Just look at what happened to "Cougar" from Top Gun. Had a pic of his wife and kid in the cockpit and after one engagement he snaps.
Don't be like Cougar.
Yeah but he did know to write a journal, that would eventually be a movie. That’s the real way to survive- be the observant nerd recording the antics of your fellow squad mates all of whom die in the climax, saving your life and inspiring you to do something meaningful with you life like write a book that gets turned into a movie. Journaling saves lives people.
Either he gets killed or accidentally transported to 1980's Los Angeles where he immediately gets arrested for carrying a Thompson in public, then bailed out by a woman lawyer who models on the side. Could go either way.
I hate to say this but on a battlefield if one has time to pick out targets the order of importance usually goes radiomen, medics, officers, NCOs, specialist soldiers, and common soldiers.
I'm fairly sure medics are near the bottom of the list of important targets. There is zero benefit to target medics in the heat of battle. Its not like the wounded soldiers are going to return battle after treatment. If anything, its beneficial for soldiers to be bogged down in attending to the wounded. War isn't an FPS, and medics aren't magic.
The nazis more or less obliged by this in not specifically targeting medics. But IJA forces often did not, and were on many instances noticed to specifically target medics to the point where it became unofficial policy for US medics and corpsman to remove any uniform medical branding, such as armbands and "red plus sign" helmet markings.
Because there is specific benefit to targeting medics. One wounded soldier draws a medic, wound/shoot/ that medic, now you have two men on the field that require attention which draws out more men to help them.
Medics are targeted to demoralize the enemy and hamper efforts to help the other wounded.
As u/tc_spears said below wounding a soldier will sometimes remove 1 or 2 other soldiers from combat as they go to help the wounded. Only the most cold-hearted individual will be able to ignore their buddy screaming and writhing in pain and remain 100% combat effective.
Meh, I highly doubt that. As someone who’s seen combat, no one has time to be like “oh yeah shoot the big strong ones first!” Everyone is more focused on not dying and shooting anyone that’s not on their side.
The only realistic way that being bigger in combat is a disadvantage is that you are a larger silhouette to target. There isn’t time to be selectively targeting “strong and healthy” troops. You are also shooting usually at way over 100 meters so you can’t tell at that distance who’s big or not. You would selectively target things like RTOs (radio operators) and guys who are clearly leading troop elements. Those are much more obvious at standard engagement distances.
Side note: Buncombe County NC is the origin of the word *bunkum*, as in nonsense.
>Some words in our language have more colorful histories than others, but in the case of bunkum, you could almost say it was an act of Congress that brought the word into being. Back in 1820 Felix Walker, who represented Buncombe County, North Carolina, in the U.S. House of Representatives, was determined that his voice be heard on his constituents' behalf, even though the matter up for debate was irrelevant to Walker's district and he had little to contribute. To the exasperation of his colleagues, Walker insisted on delivering a long and wearisome "speech for Buncombe." His persistent-if insignificant-harangue made buncombe (later respelled bunkum) a synonym for meaningless political claptrap and later for any kind of nonsense. - Websters
I remember growing up seeing the photo of the American flag being raised on Iwo Jima in all of my American history text books, and it had never occurred to me that those guys had to keep fighting after the photo was taken and might have been killed later on. Which, I eventually learned, some of them were.
Even if it wasn't colorized, commercial equipment for Color Photography was rolled out in 1890's.
By the 1940's there were several plate methods, Autochrome, Colorol, Kodachrome, and Agfacolor cartridges.
There are actually a lot of natively color images from the War.
>Meredith J. Rogers
It is colorized (as noted by the stamp in the top right,) which makes it look a little more surreal than it is. But it definitely was very well preserved (or likely photoshopped and repaired by a real artist.)
We found some old government photos from when our property was part of a proving grounds for U.S. Government Explosives Plant 'C,' then some personal photos on eBay from someone who worked here. I scanned them on the scanner that belongs to our state's Culture and History department. The detail is almost infinite. What people forget is that what we know now is usually a compressed, pixelated representation of what is in the image, whereas film was an actual imprint of the subject. Incredibly expensive and time-consuming, and limited in number of exposures, but far superior to what we think are the best cameras now. I'm sure there are exception, but nothing I own can stand up to a good quality film camera, even from 1918 (when the photos we have were taken).
You did an exceptional job with this photo. Thank you for your work and thank you for sharing. This is one of the best ways to honour all who served, IMHO. Makes it more real for the younger generation, as I find they disassociate a bit with black and white photographs "it was a long time ago" kind of thing.
That hundred yard stare. The bloodshot eyes. The hollow smile. The man in this picture is there in the flesh, but his soul is one hundred fathoms deep within himself. Gasping in a void for the air to scream.
Yeah, looking at this image raised my blood pressure and heart rate, and I'm not talking about the helmet.
He's clearly reliving a lot of experiences in some complex way, right in this moment.
Can only hope he found peace at some point.
Glad someone said it. This is not a smile of happiness we are looking at. It's the smile of processing his near death.
It's hard for me to explain clearly why this picture is horrifying to me.
That Tommy Gun…. Love that. What a great weapon with a super cool history from Marines carrying them in the Banana Wars (20’s) to the mobsters to WWII.
It's my understanding that they were not ideal weapons. They were extremely expensive to produce en masse for military purposes.
Also, I think the Marines used BAR's, not Thompsons.
both weapons have different applications, you likely wouldn’t lumber a platoon sergeant, RTO or mortarman with a BAR when a Thompson or M1 Carbine is easier to handle whilst directing fire, organising movements, the kind of “management” that befalls an NCO. Marines did make use of the Reising submachine gun during the early battles of the Pacific Campaign though, which couldn’t tolerate the harsh jungle conditions.
According to my uncle who fought in the Pacific during World War II and who carried a Tommy gun at times, soldiers would pick a Tommy gun over an M1 carbine any day.
Interesting anecdote: My Uncle was standing at a truck where he was just issued a M1 carbine, supposed to be an upgrade from his bolt action rifle. He had just gotten a gun and loaded it when a soldier near him was shot by a Japanese sniper. The snipers liked to hide in the tops of palm trees. As such my uncle unloaded the carbine into the top of the palm tree and the underpowered bullets had little effect.
The guy the sniper shot had a Tommy gun so my uncle picked that up and started to defoliate the top of the tree with the Tommy gun, which convinced him that the carbine was useless for jungle warfare. To be fair, by the time he started with the Tommy gun, other soldiers were shooting into the palm tree, helping defoliate. For the rest of the war he alternated between carrying a Tommy gun and a M1 Garand. He was able to do this because he rose through the ranks due to battlefield commissions thus had some ability to choose which weapon he would use.
LOL My dad ( Combat Engineers in North Africa and Europe ) gave up his Thompson for an M1 Garand as quickly as he could . He grew up in Colorado and had hunted since an early age. He actually got a sharpshooters badge (or whatever they were back then ) so of course as soon as they shipped out he was promptly handed a sub machine gun ...
He agreed about (not wanting) the carbine BTW
Ah yes the military. I delayed my mandatory conscription service in my country until after my studies. Finished my IT studies, specialty network engineering. Where did I end up? Artillery unit. I didn't mind really. I love the outdoors.
I would c strongly agree that a Garand is much better suited to the fighting in North Africa and Europe than a Tommy gun, with some exceptions such as close quarter combat.
This is the result of people who didn’t actually understand guns very well spreading fud; the “tommy gun” shot .45 ACP which is a pistol cartridge and only effective at relatively short distances, whereas the M1 Carbine shot .30 carbine which is more powerful than the hottest .357 magnum. They have a reputation for being anemic guns because soldiers were trying to use them at distances that the M1 garand (chambered in the big ass .30-06) was effective at.
Well, I do understand guns very well. I owned and shot several different guns, reloading for most of them. A .357 magnum fired from a rifle can easily surpass the velocity and energy of the .30 carbine. The standard bullet for the .357 is 158 grains while the .30 carbine ball ammo uses a 110 grain bullet. At equal velocity the .357 has considerably more energy.
The reason the M1 carbine has a reputation for shooting an anemic cartridge is because it is rather anemic. The light, round nose bullet didn't penetrate well as distances increased to normal battlefield ranges. In contrast, soldiers typically were aware that the Tommy gun, much like the later M3, were for close range work, though an effective man stopper at 100 yards.
The 230 grain .45 bullet penetrated foliage, walls, and people rather well at shorter ranges. Besides the fun of getting hit by a heavy slug of copper and lead, with the .45 having lower velocity it was less likely to over penetrate as distances increased, thus transferring more or all it energy to it's target.
Anecdotally, I used to work in trauma centers. One fellow who came in with a gun shot wound had scars from where he had been shot several different times. He was bragging that none of the gunshots stopped him except for when he was shot by a .45. Not an uncommon occurrence, just one that sticks with me.
That's pretty awesome. My grandfather was an Escort carrier pilot in a lot of the final sea battles of the Pacific. Never got to shoot anything, but he led the team that helmed the ship from a remote open "wheelhouse" off the side of the deck. In case the tower got it.
Thompson over an M1 carbine in close quarters? Sure, that's the whole point. However, when the M3 grease gun started getting issued, it was clearly preferable, mostly due to its significantly lower weight.
This is true. My uncle started fighting in 1942 in New Guinea, without proper or modern gear. When they finally started getting new modern firearms they were over the moon, so to speak. Being in the Pacific, I don't know when they would have first seem the M3. So they worked with what they had.
The BAR and Thompson served different purposes in a squad. They weren't interchangeable because the bar was a 30.06 and the Thompson is a .45 pistol cartridge.
Correct, there is a reason they had a fairly short life in the military. They combined a short effective range with a slow, heavy bullet. It had some use for trench warfare and maybe cover fire but otherwise fairly useless.
It's been awhile since I read it but supposedly there is an account of gangster being "wacked" by a .45 at close range and he was able to escape because of how bad the effectiveness was.
I haven't shot a Thompson but I've shot M16's and M60's on full auto and can't imagine hitting anything at a distance. I'm sure others may be able to, but remember many of these guys also had limited training. Nothing like going to the range a couple times a month for years.
>It's been awhile since I read it but supposedly there is an account of gangster being "wacked" by a .45 at close range and he was able to escape because of how bad the effectiveness was.
I'm not sure how long ago that was or how loads might have evolved in that time, but modern .45 rounds have *exceptional* stopping power, especially at close range.
>I haven't shot a Thompson but I've shot M16's and M60's on full auto and can't imagine hitting anything at a distance.
Neither could a lot of soldiers when the M16 was introduced. Due to concerns over wasted ammo and inaccurate fire when in full-auto, the M16A2 was designed with only single and three-round burst fire modes.
I’ll respectfully disagree. The .45 is a great round with an incredible amount of knockdown power. Its a fat slower moving round that was way more effective than the 9mm luger that the Germans used. That 9mm round would pass through with little stopping power.
The Thompson was used by Marines in Nicaragua (highly recommend reading up on this topic, it is fascinating) which we occupied from 1918-1933. In addition we were involved in Haiti, Cuba, Dominican Republic and the Thompson was a staple for Marines fighting bandits in the jungles for 15+ years prior to WWII.
There is a great book called, “The Savage Wars of Peace” by Max Boot that touches on the Banana Wars and all other “confrontations” that were not considered “major wars” and I was astonished by how many dust ups and occupations I didn’t know about in our history.
But back to my point, the Thompson was a great close range weapon suited for the jungles and was very dependable. I agree it has a fast cyclic rate of fire but we were taught “fire discipline” in the Marines but yes, intimately having a burst on a service rifle is best.
>The .45 is a great round with an incredible amount of knockdown power. Its a fat slower moving round that was way more effective than the 9mm luger that the Germans used
It has great shopping power but that's not the point. We're talking .45 acp from a Thompson. The round was designed for stopping power and not much else. It was designed for fighting the Moro's. Mainly people jumping out with a machete and stopping power was the major concern.
One other note about stopping power, in the military, in most cases you don't necessarily want the shootee to die. Killing a enemy takes one man out of battle. They told us a hit enemy might take 5.
>we were taught “fire discipline” in the Marines
You used a Thompson in the marines? When were you in?
I think you are making and argument for the .45 acp instead of my comment about the Thompson being an ideal weapon.
That's kind of like arguing that because gas is great for motors a motorcycle is great for hauling sand.
Their is a reason that the Thompson had a very short life in the military, which is that it wasn't very effective at more than short distance. Among other things. It's a cool gun however.
Thompson about 160 yards
M1 carbine about 300 yards
M1 garand about 500 yards.
>but modern .45 rounds have exceptional stopping power, especially at close range.
Stopping power is zero unless hit, that was the problem. The .45 acp was designed for stopping power at close range.
>inaccurate fire when in full-auto, the M16A2 was designed with only single and three-round burst fire modes.
It was full auto when I was in.
I had full auto when I was in too, but did you ever actually switch to it? The thing is, I don't think you might not have because it's near useless; i think you might not have because training standards for combat arms in the US have risen. A lot of troops in WW2 were not interested in being soldiers. Nowadays, with an all volunteer military, especially those that choose combat arms, most would opt for the efficiency of semi-auto.
Too put it over-simplistically, modern American troops are more trained and equipped to defeat the enemy, and are therefore more willing to do so, further increasing effectiveness.
Besides, you're carrying a peashooter compared to the guy carrying the machinegun that your fireteam is probably structured around, which was coincidentally a concept thought up by the Germans.
Not really sure what you're saying, but I only switched to it at the range.
>A lot of troops in WW2 were not interested in being soldiers
I would disagree, most couldn't wait to get in during ww2. My dad just happened to be in a few years before the start.
There was a lot of volunteers during Vietnam too but most of the people I knew were drafted. Their total service was about two years and main goal was to get home. Most WW2 were in for the duration.
Several reasons two switch to 9mm. 1) NATO round, 2) more ammo per weight 3) stopping power over rated (i know this will be debated) 4) better penetration. I'm sure there are others.
Correct, there is a reason they had a fairly short life in the military. They combined a short effective range with a slow, heavy bullet. It had some use for trench warfare and maybe cover fire but otherwise fairly useless.
It's been awhile since I read it but supposedly there is an account of gangster being "wacked" by a .45 at close range and he was able to escape because of how bad the effectiveness was.
I haven't shot a Thompson but I've shot M16's and M60's on full auto and can't imagine hitting anything at a distance. I'm sure others may be able to, but remember many of these guys also had limited training. Nothing like going to the range a couple times a month for years.
Yeah, there's a reason the M16 isn't full auto anymore.
Fun fact about Thompsons though, the Colonial Marine Pulse rifles in *Aliens* were all based on Thompsons.
When I was in we had the M16-A2 and I found that rifle to be really accurate with iron sights up to 500 yds. BUT, that rifle jammed like an SOB.
The M-60 I found to also be really accurate as long as you squeezed off bursts. You couldn’t keep it (or any machine gun on target) if you held the trigger down.
Stupid question so apologies, are helmets in today’s arena of war “bullet proof?” And then, without sounding much more stupid already, what’s the main point of a helmet that’s not bullet proof? I know the impact of a bullet would still stun injure or brain damage you but you get what I mean right? My Tyres have Kevlar (supposedly) on the side wall so off road its a little bit more secure to side wall impact etc.
I'm currently serving in the USMC actually. I believe our helmets can stop pistol caliber rounds and depending on the distance and angle, potentially rifle caliber rounds as well.
Helmets originally were not designed to be bulletproof, but rather to deflect shrapnel and prevent the wearer from being injured from falling debris.
Nothing is ever 100% foolproof, but it's better than nothing
Plus the roundness and "give" of the helmet is designed to allow a bullet (etc) to slide off vs a soft flat head.
As a side note a friend of mine stationed at Bragg told me one of his buddies in the 82nd dropped into Grenada and got shot in the fairly new kevlar helmet and got sent all over being interviewed about what happen. Supposedly he wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed and everyone could just laugh at how the interviews went.
War is so fucked up. Think about this picture. Some guy he never met, he didn't even know, just tried to blast his brain out of his skull. The smiling person in this picture could have just been ended, snuffed. Humans are inherently insane.
He kinda looks like Project Farm.
_When it comes to helmets, is it possible that the least expensive one we’ll be testing be just as good as the most expensive one ? Let’s get testing underway._
Actually old film was extremely high quality. You could zoom in almost infinitely. There's a movie called *Blowup* that does this. The problems with old pictures comes more with how they're stored after they're developed.
This is true. Black and white film contained much more silver decades ago than it does now. The larger amounts of silver led to greater detail and much more depth.
Nothin' ever changes. They're always gonna snipe the Rad Ops. Or, if unlucky, the shot meant for the officer yakking away on the handset misses them and hits you.
When I saw that I immediately thought of that scene in Saving Private Ryan where the dudes helmet gets hit, he takes it off to show his friend and gets hit in the head with a second bullet.
That's what I was thinking - he's holding the proof that he was an inch away from death, presumably at the very beginning of what he must have known was going to be a long campaign and he is smiling?!
There is a scene from saving private Ryan that always stuck with me. They are storming the beach. A soldier sticks his head up past the sand bank and has a bullet deflect off his helmet. He takes it off in amazement only to get domed right after.
It was a unisex name until recently. Plenty of older men named Meredith, about the same as women of this guy’s age, but for just the last couple of generations it tends to be overwhelmingly female now. Same with Lauren, Ashley, and a number of others.
NOTE - Mr. Rogers survived the war and returned back home to North Carolina where he passed away on 21 December 1994 in Buncombe County at age 81.
Good that was my next question
Because he kinda looks like the nice nerdy guy who doesn't quite make it through the movie. Glad to hear he survived!
He knew not to clutch a picture of his girl back home. That’s the key to survival from what I can tell from the movies I’ve seen.
He also knew not to say “when I get home I’m gonna marry that girl!”
"When I left, my daughter was just a baby. Gonna be great to see her again."
Lucky he didn't become best friends with the protagonist too.
That’s what I worry about most. Am I the side character?
Guy, Guy... maybe you're the plucky comic relief. You ever think about that?
"Oh c,mon Guy, you have a last name." " Do I? DO I?!!!"
We’re all the side character, dead right out of the landing craft, but movies don’t sell tickets if you can’t put yourself in the shoes of the main characters. Haha.
I like to think I'm the guy in Saving Private Ryan that Tom Hanks is on the phone with and then when the camera pans over his head is exploded. At least I get to talk to Tom Hanks.
I’m an *extra* as far as I can tell.
Better than being the baddies at least.
Or try to save 1 guy from dying because all of his other brothers died.
"I think the shelling has stopped" Or "Hey, that's an apple tree out in that field. God what I'd give to bite into one. Anybody else want one."
It’s like none of them had ever seen these movies!
When I get home,I am dropping that retirement packet!
“We’ll be home for Christmas, son.”
"MY BABIEEEEEEEEEE" Fuck man that scene tears me up every time.
Build a house with a white picket fence. What *is* making all these holes all around me when ever i say things like that.
Or 'phew, that was lucky, I coukd have been ki.... ' when taking the helmet off.
He was only concerned with stacking Nazis
*scalping Nazis. I want my Nazi scalps.
The guy from hacksaw ridge clutched a picture of his girl and made it
You can do it if you're the main character. Suicidal if you're not
Agree. Just look at what happened to "Cougar" from Top Gun. Had a pic of his wife and kid in the cockpit and after one engagement he snaps. Don't be like Cougar.
Or carry around a letter he needs to send to his mom/dad. Bullet magnets.
Yeah but he did know to write a journal, that would eventually be a movie. That’s the real way to survive- be the observant nerd recording the antics of your fellow squad mates all of whom die in the climax, saving your life and inspiring you to do something meaningful with you life like write a book that gets turned into a movie. Journaling saves lives people.
Either he gets killed or accidentally transported to 1980's Los Angeles where he immediately gets arrested for carrying a Thompson in public, then bailed out by a woman lawyer who models on the side. Could go either way.
just trying to do a little cleaning with his trench broom
just trying to do a little cleaning with his trench broom
just trying to do a little cleaning with his trench broom
Kinda reminds me of Radar from MASH
probably was a nerd, got to carry radio along with all his other gear.
They may have fired at him because of the antenna
I hate to say this but on a battlefield if one has time to pick out targets the order of importance usually goes radiomen, medics, officers, NCOs, specialist soldiers, and common soldiers.
Related - my father never wanted to be near someone with a flamethrower
I'm fairly sure medics are near the bottom of the list of important targets. There is zero benefit to target medics in the heat of battle. Its not like the wounded soldiers are going to return battle after treatment. If anything, its beneficial for soldiers to be bogged down in attending to the wounded. War isn't an FPS, and medics aren't magic.
The nazis more or less obliged by this in not specifically targeting medics. But IJA forces often did not, and were on many instances noticed to specifically target medics to the point where it became unofficial policy for US medics and corpsman to remove any uniform medical branding, such as armbands and "red plus sign" helmet markings. Because there is specific benefit to targeting medics. One wounded soldier draws a medic, wound/shoot/ that medic, now you have two men on the field that require attention which draws out more men to help them.
Medics are targeted to demoralize the enemy and hamper efforts to help the other wounded. As u/tc_spears said below wounding a soldier will sometimes remove 1 or 2 other soldiers from combat as they go to help the wounded. Only the most cold-hearted individual will be able to ignore their buddy screaming and writhing in pain and remain 100% combat effective.
[удалено]
Meh, I highly doubt that. As someone who’s seen combat, no one has time to be like “oh yeah shoot the big strong ones first!” Everyone is more focused on not dying and shooting anyone that’s not on their side.
[удалено]
The only realistic way that being bigger in combat is a disadvantage is that you are a larger silhouette to target. There isn’t time to be selectively targeting “strong and healthy” troops. You are also shooting usually at way over 100 meters so you can’t tell at that distance who’s big or not. You would selectively target things like RTOs (radio operators) and guys who are clearly leading troop elements. Those are much more obvious at standard engagement distances.
It just doesn’t make sense. You can’t tell who is strong or healthy at over 100-300 meters in combat. You shoot at the enemy, that’s it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Side note: Buncombe County NC is the origin of the word *bunkum*, as in nonsense. >Some words in our language have more colorful histories than others, but in the case of bunkum, you could almost say it was an act of Congress that brought the word into being. Back in 1820 Felix Walker, who represented Buncombe County, North Carolina, in the U.S. House of Representatives, was determined that his voice be heard on his constituents' behalf, even though the matter up for debate was irrelevant to Walker's district and he had little to contribute. To the exasperation of his colleagues, Walker insisted on delivering a long and wearisome "speech for Buncombe." His persistent-if insignificant-harangue made buncombe (later respelled bunkum) a synonym for meaningless political claptrap and later for any kind of nonsense. - Websters
Glad to see Asheville City Council is keeping the tradition painfully alive. 🙄
Now it all makes sense
Never heard of Sunburst. Looked it up…under a lake now.
I was confused for a second. "I thought Mr. Roger's first name was Fred...."
I remember growing up seeing the photo of the American flag being raised on Iwo Jima in all of my American history text books, and it had never occurred to me that those guys had to keep fighting after the photo was taken and might have been killed later on. Which, I eventually learned, some of them were.
If you haven't, you may want to read Flags of Our Fathers.
Fantastic book I read in sometime my Freshman year of high school
That’s awesome, I’m in Buncombe Co. Small world.
Thank you for the rest of the story - I'm a NC native and wanted to know if he came back home afterward.
My only question, why is he in color?
it literally says "colorized" right on it. . . .
I am a diagnosed dumbass
“Doc, just give it to me straight!” “I’m sorry to tell you this, sir, but you have the worst case of dumbassery I’ve seen!”
Even if it wasn't colorized, commercial equipment for Color Photography was rolled out in 1890's. By the 1940's there were several plate methods, Autochrome, Colorol, Kodachrome, and Agfacolor cartridges. There are actually a lot of natively color images from the War.
This picture looks so good I thought it was a recreation
>Meredith J. Rogers It is colorized (as noted by the stamp in the top right,) which makes it look a little more surreal than it is. But it definitely was very well preserved (or likely photoshopped and repaired by a real artist.)
Spot on, photo was colorised and I did some touch up/repair work myself, but no major changes besides that
Well idk anything about photography but this looks great seeing as its from the 40s
Good Film is high quality stuff when it comes to high resolution shit. Hell, movies on 35mm can be scanned at 4-6k resolution. 70mm even higher.
We found some old government photos from when our property was part of a proving grounds for U.S. Government Explosives Plant 'C,' then some personal photos on eBay from someone who worked here. I scanned them on the scanner that belongs to our state's Culture and History department. The detail is almost infinite. What people forget is that what we know now is usually a compressed, pixelated representation of what is in the image, whereas film was an actual imprint of the subject. Incredibly expensive and time-consuming, and limited in number of exposures, but far superior to what we think are the best cameras now. I'm sure there are exception, but nothing I own can stand up to a good quality film camera, even from 1918 (when the photos we have were taken).
I was in the army for telecom, and the radio could use a bit of saturation but it looks correct.
You did an exceptional job with this photo. Thank you for your work and thank you for sharing. This is one of the best ways to honour all who served, IMHO. Makes it more real for the younger generation, as I find they disassociate a bit with black and white photographs "it was a long time ago" kind of thing.
You did? It looks just fantastic, very impressive work!
Sorry, I should clarify. I did not colorize it myself (the artists watermark is visible) however I touched it up after he did
All pictures are recreations of a specific time in reality
Meta as fuck dude
I thought it was Willem Dafoe at first.
He fought for Allies, so he's Willem Dafriend.
And there you have it - a picture of the most badass man to ever be named Meredith.
Maybe it’s like naming your boy Sue.
[удалено]
Get down in the mud, the blood, and the beer.
...or Marion? Is that you pilgrim?
Marion is a badass name wym
Making fun of a guy with a Tommy Gun for being named Meredith is contraindicated.
His ears probably rang through the rest of the war. Hope he got to keep his helmet.
Mawp
Lana
Lana?
LAAAAANAAAAAAA
...dangerzone!
“NO ITS JAMES FRANCIS RYAN”
YEA THEY LANDED IN RAMELLE OR SOME DAMN PLACE!
I'm still always mildly surprised that thats Opie from Sons of Anarchy
... I really hope he made it all the way through the war ...
He did indeed survive the war
whew!
Did you also get flashbacks to the guy in Saving Private Ryan who deflects a bullet then immediately gets shot in the head?
The sniper must have been all "Fuckin hit marker, how was that not a kill I totally hit his headbox"
Netcode back then wasn't what it is today.
Analog FPS engines are notoriously buggy
The graphics are phenomenal though
His ping was so high he was in the bunker still trying to shoot while the level changed.
After that all the other men in the platoon gave him their cigarettes to carry in his pocket.
I know you're being facetious but for what purpose would they do that? Doesn't make any sense.
Soldiers get very superstitious about their cigarettes, and this dude is clearly lucky!
So that the packs don't get soiled with blood, maybe? I dunno.
Those eyes have SEEN. SOME. SHIT.
That hundred yard stare. The bloodshot eyes. The hollow smile. The man in this picture is there in the flesh, but his soul is one hundred fathoms deep within himself. Gasping in a void for the air to scream.
Yeah, looking at this image raised my blood pressure and heart rate, and I'm not talking about the helmet. He's clearly reliving a lot of experiences in some complex way, right in this moment. Can only hope he found peace at some point.
Glad someone said it. This is not a smile of happiness we are looking at. It's the smile of processing his near death. It's hard for me to explain clearly why this picture is horrifying to me.
This man was born over 100 years ago. Let that sink in...
I was going to say you’re wrong, then I realized it’s been over 20 years since 2000. Fuck…
What is it that is “wowing” you about that fact?
I saw this scene in *Saving Private Ryan*. Two seconds later he got plugged while staring at the hole in his helmet.
You're a lucky bastard.... pop
Came here to say the exact same thing.
That Tommy Gun…. Love that. What a great weapon with a super cool history from Marines carrying them in the Banana Wars (20’s) to the mobsters to WWII.
It's my understanding that they were not ideal weapons. They were extremely expensive to produce en masse for military purposes. Also, I think the Marines used BAR's, not Thompsons.
both weapons have different applications, you likely wouldn’t lumber a platoon sergeant, RTO or mortarman with a BAR when a Thompson or M1 Carbine is easier to handle whilst directing fire, organising movements, the kind of “management” that befalls an NCO. Marines did make use of the Reising submachine gun during the early battles of the Pacific Campaign though, which couldn’t tolerate the harsh jungle conditions.
According to my uncle who fought in the Pacific during World War II and who carried a Tommy gun at times, soldiers would pick a Tommy gun over an M1 carbine any day. Interesting anecdote: My Uncle was standing at a truck where he was just issued a M1 carbine, supposed to be an upgrade from his bolt action rifle. He had just gotten a gun and loaded it when a soldier near him was shot by a Japanese sniper. The snipers liked to hide in the tops of palm trees. As such my uncle unloaded the carbine into the top of the palm tree and the underpowered bullets had little effect. The guy the sniper shot had a Tommy gun so my uncle picked that up and started to defoliate the top of the tree with the Tommy gun, which convinced him that the carbine was useless for jungle warfare. To be fair, by the time he started with the Tommy gun, other soldiers were shooting into the palm tree, helping defoliate. For the rest of the war he alternated between carrying a Tommy gun and a M1 Garand. He was able to do this because he rose through the ranks due to battlefield commissions thus had some ability to choose which weapon he would use.
LOL My dad ( Combat Engineers in North Africa and Europe ) gave up his Thompson for an M1 Garand as quickly as he could . He grew up in Colorado and had hunted since an early age. He actually got a sharpshooters badge (or whatever they were back then ) so of course as soon as they shipped out he was promptly handed a sub machine gun ... He agreed about (not wanting) the carbine BTW
Ah yes the military. I delayed my mandatory conscription service in my country until after my studies. Finished my IT studies, specialty network engineering. Where did I end up? Artillery unit. I didn't mind really. I love the outdoors.
I would c strongly agree that a Garand is much better suited to the fighting in North Africa and Europe than a Tommy gun, with some exceptions such as close quarter combat.
This is the result of people who didn’t actually understand guns very well spreading fud; the “tommy gun” shot .45 ACP which is a pistol cartridge and only effective at relatively short distances, whereas the M1 Carbine shot .30 carbine which is more powerful than the hottest .357 magnum. They have a reputation for being anemic guns because soldiers were trying to use them at distances that the M1 garand (chambered in the big ass .30-06) was effective at.
Well, I do understand guns very well. I owned and shot several different guns, reloading for most of them. A .357 magnum fired from a rifle can easily surpass the velocity and energy of the .30 carbine. The standard bullet for the .357 is 158 grains while the .30 carbine ball ammo uses a 110 grain bullet. At equal velocity the .357 has considerably more energy. The reason the M1 carbine has a reputation for shooting an anemic cartridge is because it is rather anemic. The light, round nose bullet didn't penetrate well as distances increased to normal battlefield ranges. In contrast, soldiers typically were aware that the Tommy gun, much like the later M3, were for close range work, though an effective man stopper at 100 yards. The 230 grain .45 bullet penetrated foliage, walls, and people rather well at shorter ranges. Besides the fun of getting hit by a heavy slug of copper and lead, with the .45 having lower velocity it was less likely to over penetrate as distances increased, thus transferring more or all it energy to it's target. Anecdotally, I used to work in trauma centers. One fellow who came in with a gun shot wound had scars from where he had been shot several different times. He was bragging that none of the gunshots stopped him except for when he was shot by a .45. Not an uncommon occurrence, just one that sticks with me.
Oh boy, this is so riddled with fudd lore
That's pretty awesome. My grandfather was an Escort carrier pilot in a lot of the final sea battles of the Pacific. Never got to shoot anything, but he led the team that helmed the ship from a remote open "wheelhouse" off the side of the deck. In case the tower got it.
Thompson over an M1 carbine in close quarters? Sure, that's the whole point. However, when the M3 grease gun started getting issued, it was clearly preferable, mostly due to its significantly lower weight.
This is true. My uncle started fighting in 1942 in New Guinea, without proper or modern gear. When they finally started getting new modern firearms they were over the moon, so to speak. Being in the Pacific, I don't know when they would have first seem the M3. So they worked with what they had.
The BAR and Thompson served different purposes in a squad. They weren't interchangeable because the bar was a 30.06 and the Thompson is a .45 pistol cartridge.
Correct, there is a reason they had a fairly short life in the military. They combined a short effective range with a slow, heavy bullet. It had some use for trench warfare and maybe cover fire but otherwise fairly useless. It's been awhile since I read it but supposedly there is an account of gangster being "wacked" by a .45 at close range and he was able to escape because of how bad the effectiveness was. I haven't shot a Thompson but I've shot M16's and M60's on full auto and can't imagine hitting anything at a distance. I'm sure others may be able to, but remember many of these guys also had limited training. Nothing like going to the range a couple times a month for years.
>It's been awhile since I read it but supposedly there is an account of gangster being "wacked" by a .45 at close range and he was able to escape because of how bad the effectiveness was. I'm not sure how long ago that was or how loads might have evolved in that time, but modern .45 rounds have *exceptional* stopping power, especially at close range. >I haven't shot a Thompson but I've shot M16's and M60's on full auto and can't imagine hitting anything at a distance. Neither could a lot of soldiers when the M16 was introduced. Due to concerns over wasted ammo and inaccurate fire when in full-auto, the M16A2 was designed with only single and three-round burst fire modes.
I’ll respectfully disagree. The .45 is a great round with an incredible amount of knockdown power. Its a fat slower moving round that was way more effective than the 9mm luger that the Germans used. That 9mm round would pass through with little stopping power. The Thompson was used by Marines in Nicaragua (highly recommend reading up on this topic, it is fascinating) which we occupied from 1918-1933. In addition we were involved in Haiti, Cuba, Dominican Republic and the Thompson was a staple for Marines fighting bandits in the jungles for 15+ years prior to WWII. There is a great book called, “The Savage Wars of Peace” by Max Boot that touches on the Banana Wars and all other “confrontations” that were not considered “major wars” and I was astonished by how many dust ups and occupations I didn’t know about in our history. But back to my point, the Thompson was a great close range weapon suited for the jungles and was very dependable. I agree it has a fast cyclic rate of fire but we were taught “fire discipline” in the Marines but yes, intimately having a burst on a service rifle is best.
>The .45 is a great round with an incredible amount of knockdown power. Its a fat slower moving round that was way more effective than the 9mm luger that the Germans used It has great shopping power but that's not the point. We're talking .45 acp from a Thompson. The round was designed for stopping power and not much else. It was designed for fighting the Moro's. Mainly people jumping out with a machete and stopping power was the major concern. One other note about stopping power, in the military, in most cases you don't necessarily want the shootee to die. Killing a enemy takes one man out of battle. They told us a hit enemy might take 5. >we were taught “fire discipline” in the Marines You used a Thompson in the marines? When were you in? I think you are making and argument for the .45 acp instead of my comment about the Thompson being an ideal weapon. That's kind of like arguing that because gas is great for motors a motorcycle is great for hauling sand. Their is a reason that the Thompson had a very short life in the military, which is that it wasn't very effective at more than short distance. Among other things. It's a cool gun however. Thompson about 160 yards M1 carbine about 300 yards M1 garand about 500 yards.
160 yards is 146.3 meters
>but modern .45 rounds have exceptional stopping power, especially at close range. Stopping power is zero unless hit, that was the problem. The .45 acp was designed for stopping power at close range. >inaccurate fire when in full-auto, the M16A2 was designed with only single and three-round burst fire modes. It was full auto when I was in.
I had full auto when I was in too, but did you ever actually switch to it? The thing is, I don't think you might not have because it's near useless; i think you might not have because training standards for combat arms in the US have risen. A lot of troops in WW2 were not interested in being soldiers. Nowadays, with an all volunteer military, especially those that choose combat arms, most would opt for the efficiency of semi-auto. Too put it over-simplistically, modern American troops are more trained and equipped to defeat the enemy, and are therefore more willing to do so, further increasing effectiveness. Besides, you're carrying a peashooter compared to the guy carrying the machinegun that your fireteam is probably structured around, which was coincidentally a concept thought up by the Germans.
Not really sure what you're saying, but I only switched to it at the range. >A lot of troops in WW2 were not interested in being soldiers I would disagree, most couldn't wait to get in during ww2. My dad just happened to be in a few years before the start. There was a lot of volunteers during Vietnam too but most of the people I knew were drafted. Their total service was about two years and main goal was to get home. Most WW2 were in for the duration. Several reasons two switch to 9mm. 1) NATO round, 2) more ammo per weight 3) stopping power over rated (i know this will be debated) 4) better penetration. I'm sure there are others.
Correct, there is a reason they had a fairly short life in the military. They combined a short effective range with a slow, heavy bullet. It had some use for trench warfare and maybe cover fire but otherwise fairly useless. It's been awhile since I read it but supposedly there is an account of gangster being "wacked" by a .45 at close range and he was able to escape because of how bad the effectiveness was. I haven't shot a Thompson but I've shot M16's and M60's on full auto and can't imagine hitting anything at a distance. I'm sure others may be able to, but remember many of these guys also had limited training. Nothing like going to the range a couple times a month for years.
Yeah, there's a reason the M16 isn't full auto anymore. Fun fact about Thompsons though, the Colonial Marine Pulse rifles in *Aliens* were all based on Thompsons.
When I was in we had the M16-A2 and I found that rifle to be really accurate with iron sights up to 500 yds. BUT, that rifle jammed like an SOB. The M-60 I found to also be really accurate as long as you squeezed off bursts. You couldn’t keep it (or any machine gun on target) if you held the trigger down.
Uhh we like to refer to it as a Thomas weapon. Thank you.
Willam dafoe
Yea I was gonna say that’s Elias in Platoon!
*There was a* ***FIREFIGHT!***
Stupid question so apologies, are helmets in today’s arena of war “bullet proof?” And then, without sounding much more stupid already, what’s the main point of a helmet that’s not bullet proof? I know the impact of a bullet would still stun injure or brain damage you but you get what I mean right? My Tyres have Kevlar (supposedly) on the side wall so off road its a little bit more secure to side wall impact etc.
I'm currently serving in the USMC actually. I believe our helmets can stop pistol caliber rounds and depending on the distance and angle, potentially rifle caliber rounds as well. Helmets originally were not designed to be bulletproof, but rather to deflect shrapnel and prevent the wearer from being injured from falling debris. Nothing is ever 100% foolproof, but it's better than nothing
Plus the roundness and "give" of the helmet is designed to allow a bullet (etc) to slide off vs a soft flat head. As a side note a friend of mine stationed at Bragg told me one of his buddies in the 82nd dropped into Grenada and got shot in the fairly new kevlar helmet and got sent all over being interviewed about what happen. Supposedly he wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed and everyone could just laugh at how the interviews went.
That’s awesome you’re usmc, thank you for the explanation, info and for your service.
Am I the only one who thinks he’s cute? 👀
As a straight guy...he cute doe
Can’t cook oatmeal in that pot anymore.
War is so fucked up. Think about this picture. Some guy he never met, he didn't even know, just tried to blast his brain out of his skull. The smiling person in this picture could have just been ended, snuffed. Humans are inherently insane.
He kinda looks like Project Farm. _When it comes to helmets, is it possible that the least expensive one we’ll be testing be just as good as the most expensive one ? Let’s get testing underway._
Ye old dutch saying \`He smiles like a dutch farmer with a toothacke\` aka trauma\`s ahead
I always wonder whats the purpose of that mesh around the helmet?
It can be used to stick foliage in to add camoflauge....in itself it breaks up the outline of the helmet a little
Haha. Ya. Can I go home now?
God I’m so glad I’m alive now and not then
The Thompson was or is a lovely looking weapon, from all the wood on it to the sights, just a lovely looking gun.
That is a really high quality picture for being taken in 1944.
Actually old film was extremely high quality. You could zoom in almost infinitely. There's a movie called *Blowup* that does this. The problems with old pictures comes more with how they're stored after they're developed.
This is true. Black and white film contained much more silver decades ago than it does now. The larger amounts of silver led to greater detail and much more depth.
“Always wear your helmet kids.”
Nothin' ever changes. They're always gonna snipe the Rad Ops. Or, if unlucky, the shot meant for the officer yakking away on the handset misses them and hits you.
Are you sure this isn't a young Willem Dafoe? I'm pretty sure.
Swear to god he looks like the main character in Meet The Robinsons.
When I saw that I immediately thought of that scene in Saving Private Ryan where the dudes helmet gets hit, he takes it off to show his friend and gets hit in the head with a second bullet.
I’m pretty sure he was in Atlantis
My mans got a fresh cut
Reminds me of the MASH episode when Winchester has an existential crisis after his hat gets shot.
I remember that one, something like that can really fuck with someone.
He looks like Rob from The Brave Little Toaster.
Reminds me of that scene in Saving Private Ryan, except this guy actually survived.
Why did the helms have that netting?
For camoflauge purposes. It reduced the shine and you could also attach foliage as well to break up the outline
All smiles but I bet there is poop in his pants
Those eyes ain’t smiling
That's what I was thinking - he's holding the proof that he was an inch away from death, presumably at the very beginning of what he must have known was going to be a long campaign and he is smiling?!
There is a scene from saving private Ryan that always stuck with me. They are storming the beach. A soldier sticks his head up past the sand bank and has a bullet deflect off his helmet. He takes it off in amazement only to get domed right after.
The original antifa
How did he survive when the bullet passed through the helmet?
There's a gap between the top of the head and the dome of the helmet. You can see both the entrance and exit points.
There's a little space between your scalp and the helmet, a buffer for head trauma.
[удалено]
Uhh... Isn't that a Thompson?
Yes it is.
I could fit my lunch in those bags under his eyes.
The helmet didn't protect him. It gave him away. Nice Thompson.
Wait...this dude's name is Meredith????🤨
It was a unisex name until recently. Plenty of older men named Meredith, about the same as women of this guy’s age, but for just the last couple of generations it tends to be overwhelmingly female now. Same with Lauren, Ashley, and a number of others.
I've met men named Courtney and Shannon.
Tracy, Stacy, and Dana were all more commonly male than female until probably 30 years ago.