Corrected entry: In the scene in the French village after the soldier attempting to rescue the girl is shot, where the German marksman is shown being shot through the scope is an impossibility. Modern higher powered rifles are unable to pierce a scope, let alone pierce directly through the scope and through the German's head. Also, a marksman on a battlefield, under stress, would never be able to place such an accurate shot. Sources: Mythbusters. (00:55:40)
Tailkinker
18th Nov 2008
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
17th Jan 2008
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Corrected entry: It is a great irony that the cowardly soldier just happens to be named Upham. It is an unusual name and happens to be shared with Captain Charles Upham, a New Zealand soldier who, during WWII, was awarded the Victoria Cross twice. He is only the third person in history and the only combat soldier to receive the VC twice (the other two being medics). So the fictional Upham couldn't be more different to his real life namesake.
Correction: Without evidence that the choice of name was an intentional nod to the real-life Upham, this lies entirely within the realm of coincidence and, as such, is not valid trivia.
17th Dec 2007
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Corrected entry: On D-Day itself only TWO German fighters actually attacked the beaches of Normandy (in total contradiction to Hitler's orders, who still thought of it as being a feint attack). The pilots were the aces Josef "Pips" Priller and Heinz Wodarczyk.
Correction: In what way is this trivia relating to the film? If the film shows more fighters, then it's a mistake, not trivia, if the film only shows one, then the other is presumably off camera, if the film shows the accurate two, then you're just pointing what's seen on screen (which isn't good trivia) and the background information isn't particularly film-relevant. Trivia is supposed to be about the film - while historical facts are interesting, thousands could be added about any historically set film. As such, they cannot be accepted as valid trivia.
23rd Jul 2007
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Corrected entry: Before the final battle at Ramelle, the Jewish soldier is explaining to Upham what his upcoming duties are. He is to be "Johnny on the spot" with providing ammo to the different locations of soldiers set up around the town.Why not just equally divide up all the ammo amongst the soldiers? Is Upham really supposed to be a walking ammo-store for each group of soldiers? What if he gets shot? No ammo.
Correction: Just because you think that something should be done differently, it doesn't make it a mistake. To divide ammunition equally between the soldiers makes little sense if you don't know precisely where the enemy will attack from. With no backup supply available, those soldiers facing the assault could swiftly run out of ammunition, leaving them vulnerable, while those soldiers not facing the direct assault have a good supply of ammunition that's of no use. Far better to have a central supply that can be doled out as required, despite the inherent risks.
12th Jan 2006
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Corrected entry: As the boys on MythBusters recently demonstrated, bullets that enter the water even from very short ranges shatter and travel no more than about 1 metre before they run out of energy. So the opening scenes of the Omaha landing showing troops being shot while well under the water could not have happened.
Correction: As veterans of the Omaha beach landing described how they received injuries under those exact circumstances, I think it's safe to say that not only did the Mythbusters experiment fail to accurately replicate the situation, but that what's seen on screen is entirely possible.
Whether or not it is possible for a bullet to travel that far through water would depend on a number of factors, including the water's temperature, the amount of water, the water's depth, and the distance from the water the bullet is being fired from.
The Germans were firing tracer bullets at the Americans during the Normandy scene. Tracer rounds catch fire as they travel through the air causing them to get very hot. This could have allowed them to travel very deep underwater with lethal force, if the round is shot from a great enough distance that is.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Correction: Many veterans mention such a shot being taken in memoirs written after the war. First-hand accounts by veterans would seem more definitive than a TV show that can only attempt to simulate a given situation. Further, it's only impossible with a modern scope, the Mythbusters revisited the myth and found that it is in fact plausible with a period scope. Not to mention Carlos Hathcock had a confirmed kill in Vietnam in this way.
Tailkinker ★
Yeah, but you have to use armor piercing bullets in order to pierce the scope. You can't regular bullets. When the mythbusters revisited the myth, only armor piercing bullets where able to pierce the scope. Regular bullets couldn't.