Saving Private Ryan

[Eddo36]

Remember in the last battle with the team's sniper in that clock tower with that tank aiming at him and blowing him up? Why didn't he just shoot into the tank's barrel. Wouldn't it cause the artillery shell inside to explode, or ruin the barrel of the tank?

[Pop]

*gulp* that was awesome.

[Kor Qel Droma]

Remember in the last battle with the team's sniper in that clock tower with that tank aiming at him and blowing him up? Why didn't he just shoot into the tank's barrel. Wouldn't it cause the artillery shell inside to explode, or ruin the barrel of the tank?

 

Nope, doesn't ring a bell.

[GreasyDogMeat]

First of all, the sight of a tank aiming at him might have been a bit overwhelming. Second, his accuracy was degrading over time anyway. Third, how did he shoot 7+ rounds without having to reload? It was a 5 round Springfield! Fourth, this is a very strange thread.

[Eddo36]

He did shoot a German sniper who was aiming at him.

[Xard]

Because not everyone is Rambo

[Pidesco]

wtf

[Dark_Raven]

You're weird. The local mental institution awaits you.

[metadigital]

Remember in the last battle with the team's sniper in that clock tower with that tank aiming at him and blowing him up? Why didn't he just shoot into the tank's barrel. Wouldn't it cause the artillery shell inside to explode, or ruin the barrel of the tank?

Are you asking if the writers made a decision that you find insufficiently fabulous to excite you as you demand from cinema, or because you think that just because some particular event is vanishingly possible that it is necessarily probable, or because you have no idea what effect pressure has on an individual in a given circumstance?

[Gfted1]

It would have to be a one-in-a-million shot, perfectly centered in the tank barrel to strike the shell diretly on the detonator. In that scenario, not only would the barrel be ruined but the entire turret would blow off like a champagne cork. The junction where the barrel meets the turret meets the chassis is a weak point on tanks.

[Hurlshort]

Is this anything like bulls-eyeing a womp rat?

[Tale]

Aren't HE shells fuse detonated, as opposed to impact?

 

I have my doubts that shooting down the barrel of a, y'know... this thread is silly.

[Hurlshort]

Use the Force, Barry Pepper.

[Gfted1]

Aren't HE shells fuse detonated, as opposed to impact?

 

I just wiki it and you are correct. Well, insofar as modern HEAT rounds. I couldnt find anything about HEAT rounds of the WWII era but its probably the same.

[Aram]

Spielburg probably figured that he'd pushed the limits of reality in his movie a bit too far into Schwarzenegger territory already. That or he didn't think of it.

 

As for whether or not it's possible, who knows without trying it. It'd be a one in a million shot, but I suppose it could be possible to at least damage the warhead enough to ruin it. The shooting the sniper through the scope bit, at least, had a precident; it happened in Vietnam. But that was a one in a million shot, and it certainly doesn't need to be replicated in every single movie, especially considering that modern scopes are stronger and have been shown to be capable of stopping bullets before they pass even through the first few lenses in the tube.

[Guest Accept]

The grenade wouldnt explode even if he actually had hit it with his sniper bullet.

[Aram]

Yeah, probably not, unless he was shooting some kind of modern explosive tipped round that obviously didn't even exist in WW2. It could theoretically mangle it enough that it would no longer work properly.

 

But since it would basically have to be a bullseye shot down an 88mm hole traveling down a straight narrow pipe without first striking the side of the barrel, and since the artillery barrel wouldn't even be lined up perfectly with the sniper's rifle as it would have to compensate for trajectory, it's just frankly inconcievable.

 

Of course it is Hollywood, so maybe you could sell someone your idea.

[metadigital]

I knew Ed-D'Oh had a familiar feeling ...

[Eddo36]

But since it would basically have to be a bullseye shot down an 88mm hole traveling down a straight narrow pipe without first striking the side of the barrel, and since the artillery barrel wouldn't even be lined up perfectly with the sniper's rifle as it would have to compensate for trajectory, it's just frankly inconcievable.

 

Well the artillery barrel does not have to be aimed directly at him. He can just shoot into the hole and the bullet will ricochet from inside the barrel until it hits the round? And it doesn't have to detonate the round, just enough to damage it so it won't fire out of the barrel. Either that or damage the rifling inside the barrel.

[Guest Accept]

But since it would basically have to be a bullseye shot down an 88mm hole traveling down a straight narrow pipe without first striking the side of the barrel, and since the artillery barrel wouldn't even be lined up perfectly with the sniper's rifle as it would have to compensate for trajectory, it's just frankly inconcievable.

 

Well the artillery barrel does not have to be aimed directly at him. He can just shoot into the hole and the bullet will ricochet from inside the barrel until it hits the round? And it doesn't have to detonate the round, just enough to damage it so it won't fire out of the barrel. Either that or damage the rifling inside the barrel.

I don't think the bullet has enough power to actually inflict so much damage to the barrel that it's preventing the grenade from "coming out" of the it...

[Purgatorio]

But it impacts directly with the tip so then it goes boom and blows up the shell, thus not defying all logic, because it "ED-Dohlogic" Or however it's spelt, (I don't care enough to look for the wiki)

[Diamond]

I don't think the bullet has enough power to actually inflict so much damage to the barrel that it's preventing the grenade from "coming out" of the it...

I think he means because of deformation caused by the bullet (which I doubt too), not the momentum of the bullet.

 

PS

And I doubt it would detonate. So far I haven't heard of a single case where a tank was disabled by a shot in the barrel.

[metadigital]

^^Perils of Posting Under the Influence.

[Walsingham]

Firstly, to prove my spod-like credentials it was a Marder III tank destroyer, not a tank.

 

Secondly it may be daft but the thought did occur to me also thata shot down the barrel would be my reaction, even if it wasn't very likely to do anything. However:

 

- a rifle bullet is not going to hurt the inside of cannon barrel in the least. Think of the pressure and force the barrel contains when it is fired.

- assuming the sniper's bullet hit the shell, it would probably have been a high explosive round (not the more difficult to manufacture and valuable HEAT rounds). These are actually pretty tough. and unlikely to suffer any serious injury.

- assuming the sniper's bullet hit the fuzing at the nose of the shell it would be unlikely to make the shell explode, but it might. This would be quite messy.

 

He'd have been better off shooting the guy loading the shell/firing the shell through the vision port to the right of the main gun. Probably.

 

But the main thing is that SPR is just damned silly after the opening sequence.

[Purgatorio]

^^Perils of Posting Under the Influence.

It makes you stray into an edomfgtopic