Everything Wrong with the Sniper Rifles in "Enemy at the Gates”
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 05. 2024
- All the best firearms history channels streaming to all major devices:
weaponsandwar.tv
One of the very few blockbuster American movies about the Eastern Front in World War Two is Enemy at the Gates, a film about the Soviet sniper Vasily Zaitsev. The movie is based around a duel between Zaitsev and the fictional German sniper Erwin König during the Battle of Stalingrad. There are lots of points of contention surrounding the historical accuracy of the film overall, but today I want to look at specifically the small arms.
Enemy at the Gates really has just one problem when it comes to guns: it portrays a lot of things before they would have actually existed. However, it portrays them quite accurately besides the chronological issues. The Soviet snipers are all shown with M91/30 PU rifles - which were not in production until just after the film's events take place. Zaitsev actually used a PEM model of Mosin sniper, dating from before the war. Major König is similarly shown with a single-claw Mauser K98k sniper, which was only introduced in mid/late 1943.
Overall, I would give the film a pretty solid grade for its small arms. The PU was the most common and recognizable Soviet sniper rifle of the war, and it really doesn't have a noticeable impact on the story of the film unless you are really obsessive about historical details.
utreon.com/c/forgottenweapons/
/ forgottenweapons
www.floatplane.com/channel/For...
Cool Forgotten Weapons merch! shop.forgottenweapons.com
I was the stunt coordinator and military adviser on 'Enemy at the Gates ' I was also the feldwebel shot in the head when Jude is firing from the fountain after the charge across the square. As an ex movie armourer and WW2 military history buff, I went to quite a lot of trouble to get it as 'right' as possible but I certainly didn't know about the dates that the Nagant sights came out. When we shot the movie in 2000, the internet information was still in its infancy and not the amazing source of information it is today so I apologise that I failed on the rivet counting field. However, I did take Jude and Ed out on a range outside Berlin and got them to fire 80 rounds of ball ammo with their respective rifles to get the feel of proper recoil and got Jude used to carrying his rifle across his chest thus protecting the sight at all times. I'd told Ed to keep his head back from the sight but it was very cold on that day in January and after about 70 rounds, they were both pretty tired. Ed got too close to his sight and the recoil bit him and opened up his eyebrow which needed a couple of stitches which you can see if you look closely in some of the earlier scenes. I certainly wasn't aware of the Finnish converted Nagants as at that stage, the production was crazy busy and I think we all had bigger fish to fry! Hope people enjoyed the movie as it was one of the coldest and miserable locations I've had to experience as we shot from January to end of March. Jim Dowdall
It's a fun movie! You should reach out to Corridor Digital for their "stuntmen react" series; I bet they'd love to hear any other stories you have from on set.
Thank you so much for this inside information! Historical fiction is still fiction. They are entertainment and not historical documents. I enjoyed the film and the guns were close enough to serve the purpose. Kudos!
Very cool, thanks for the first-hand account! :)
Thanks for the details. It's always nice to get the info first hand.
Minor glitches didn't affect the high quality of the film.
Loved the movie
“I’m not an expert in German sniper rifles”.
My soul has been crushed, I just naturally assumed Ian had it all memorized, down to the serial number blocks of the screws used to attach the scope. “And to hold the screws in they used a German version of Loc-Tite, made in Dresden in 1940, on a Tuesday by a gentleman named Hans who ironically skipped breakfast that morning which is why the scope didn’t hold that day. If only Hans had a couple eggs, the war might have turned out differently”.
Experts know what they don’t know.
It’s very, very comforting to hear an expert say that they’re not an expert in something - it means they’re not a know-it-all.
touche. it's the high standard from Ian we've been conditioned to see and appreciate. and you're hilarious.
I thought the exact same thing.
To be clear, NOT the part about Hans' contribution to the axis defeat, the OTHER bit, about being surprised Iain isn't an expert about some firearm.
🤣🤣👍👍
Man you made my day😂
In 'Back To The Future', when Marty is onstage playing guitar at the dance, he is playing a guitar that technically shouldn't exist for another three years.
Yup gibson 335 I mentioned this on a back to the future vid. Good to see another guitar nerd on here.
in the directors cut Marty travels in time to get the amp and the guitar
He's also not really "playing" it - just finger-bashing over the fretboard and hoping there aren't any real guitar players in the audience. But, then again... He's also doing time travel and hoping like hell there aren't any fundamental laws of the universe around either, so I guess the guitar is the least of his problems...
That's probably the musician's equivalent of the gun nerd's spotting that the actors aren't using the sights properly.
Makes sense though, as photography makes demands that scope geometries most inconsiderately fail to accommodate.
@@OfMoachAndMayhem what's interesting is that apparently, they originally had a period-correct Gibson ES5 in blonde, but director Zemeckis wanted a 'red guitar'. Well, Gibson didn't have any guitars in red, at least not the hollowbody electric type until like '59. So whether or not production was aware, they cheated it by a few years. Of course, the majority of moviegoers wouldn't notice. Heck I was already a guitar player and I didn't realize at the time either.
So that is why he kick it down.
About ‘marines’. Sailors was a big part of revolution in 1917 but they don’t have any kind of webbing to carry rifle ammo. But they have loads of Maxim MG and belts on ships. So they use it to carry rifle ammo. Since cross belted sailor become iconic image of revolution. And during WW2 many sailors were transferred to infantry units and they still didn’t have webbing for rifle ammo so they again use MG belts to carry it
Yeah there are lots of photos of Soviet naval infantry wearing maxim belts as a means to carry ammo for their rifles, though most have the majority of the slots filled. I guess the argument could be made that spacing the rounds to every other slot would make it easier to grab one bullet at a time out of the belt for loading the rifle.
Why wouldn't the sailors use the stripper clips that were issued with Mosins and how they were trained to load the rifles?
Finns just carried those in pockets.
I think there’s still guys that do that now with PKM belts
I would imagine loading every other slot would also make it much easier to pluck out individual rounds for reloads.
Odd thing to me is if the ammo was simply being carried why not load the belts where you can get access to it rather than having rounds lurking in the small of your back where it'd be a real hassle to get to while being shot at
My dad used to take great delight in pointing out the errors in films, one example being the Spitfire in ‘Battle of Britain’ (1969) that had too many blades on the propeller for that time of the war (4 vs 3).
That is quite a nit-pick. I imagine all the Luftwaffe aircraft sporting Merlin engines must have been quite galling for him.
@@jamesdalton2014Yes, the Messerschmitts were really recently retired Spanish Buchons, he did point that out as well 🤣 He found it amusing how long they were in service.
How many times have you heard about the telltale cut out and puff of smoke produced by the hurricane that does a barrel roll at the start of the movie?
Does anyone else remember the scene when Robert Shaw comes out of 'his house' and there is a post war, plastic bell push mounted to the doorframe?
He would love sites like the internet movie plane data base.
I'm passing it as fun curiosity.
Retired lieutenant colonel of Polish Army, Marek Czerwiński wrote a book "Sniper duels". It's a collection of short stories, which plot of some is placed at eastern front of WW2. I don't know how much these are influenced by real events, but it's quite good reading.
In one story, soviet sniper Achmetianov is using DIY modified M91/30 PU. It is described, that he chopped off whole front of the stock right after the first barrelband in front of the rear sight (because upper handguard kept cracking), polished trigger mechanism to lighten it up a little, fastened buttstock leather boot filled with felt, improvised rised cheek rest with several layers of thick leather, mounted piece of tube on the front of the scope as anti reflection measure. He was experienced pre war hunter, so he basicaly "sporterized" his rifle.
Other story is about other pre war hunter, now sniper, Pchelintsev, that climbed onto the pylon of the blown up bridge, over the Neva river, near the Leningrad. Mostly he was scouting and noting spotted German positions on the other riverbank, but when the german artillery was firing he was popping some accurate shots with his 91/30 PE. As this story goes, he survived only because enemies didn't suspected someone insane enough to climb onto the blown up bridge.
With the belt thing I can almost guarantee what the situation was.
"Hey props says they don't have enough demilled ammo for the belts they want the marines to wear."
"Eh, just load every other link, the audience won't notice. It's not like Ian from forgotten weapons is gonna pick over our film."
Or "We need these extras on set right now" "But their shoulder strap thingys aren't loaded" "Well, rush that" "Okay, we'll do every other, that will look fine."
Or the Extras wrangler was all "good lord this is heavy we'll have people bailing on us after the first day, let's take out half the bullets."
@@davydatwood3158 all of these are equally as likely
I think they wanted them to wear them as makeshift bandoleers, so they just told them load every other loop.
I've noticed all of the surplus 7.62x54r I've ever bought (even dating back to WW2 era) is not shiny brass as depicted in the film.
The guys with the ammo belts across their chests had some lines in the original script that were cut. I am posting below:
“Badges, to god-damned hell with badges! We have no badges. In fact, we don't need badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges, you god-damned cabrón and chinga tu madre! Come out there from that shit-hole of yours. I have to speak to you."
Random fact: In Platoon, Tom Berenger was carrying a cold steel defender push dagger, which cold steel as a company wasn't even founded until 1980.
Ricky Nelson in Rio Bravo beats 'em all with his appearing and disappearing bullet holes.
@@mpetersen6 Raiders of the Lost Ark: MP-40's, Walther P-38's, and Soviet RPG-2's magically exist in 1933, YEARS before they were created!
In Goodfellas the Idlewild airport scene is stamped 1963 yet they are leaning on the back of a 1965 Impala
@@widehotep9257The RPG in Raiders blows my mind every time I see it. 😆
Raiders of the Lost Ark: the staff is explicitly supposed to be 5 ft. tall... 6 kadam high ("about 72 inches") and take back one kadam to honor the Hebrew God whose Ark this is... and it towers over Jones in the map room. If the Germans couldn't find the Ark because they were digging in the wrong place, then Jones never should have found it either because his staff was even longer than theirs. Most explicit continuity error in film.
I build vintage road-race cars. This is why no one wants to watch period motorsports movies with me.
That's actually pretty cool. I bet it's also quite expensive.
@@SamuraiAkechi
They're all used, so it's cheaper. 😉
😆
i love racing but never really seen many racing movies. what are the most realistic historic racing movies?
Same with people who practice HEMA and have a vague knowledge of medieval arms and armor. Makes “historical” medieval movies unbearable.
I remember a set designer for a movie saying that they worked to achieve a feel for the time and place rather than for total accuracy. Sometimes, they just couldn't get the exact props, so they just came as close as they could.
This film failed at creating the appropriate feel for the time and place, so there's that...
@Eirik_Jarl I don't agree. Even if you knew basic history of the event, this was a good, historical representation.
Except that Major Koenig didn't exist.
I've been a extra on several films and it's disappointing when the historical experts ( 20year old fresh out of art collage )says they resurched this time period for the last 3 weeks when me and my friends have studied the details of the battle for 25+ years .and yes there are lots of people around the world who do know
@@fearthehoneybadger They have so much wrong, I am a soviet and German reenactor, it is almost insulting how much they got wrong... Top example would be the way they portray the soviets, 1 gets the rifle the other the ammunition, that is just bs. Also the way they portrayed order 277 is also just wrong
@@CapraObscura Exactly. It's a punchline. The whole movie is a punchline. It has a message and uses its cinematography to display it, not the other way around.
Awesome! Next, please do "Raiders of the Lost Ark", where MP-40's, Walther P-38's and Soviet RPG-2's time travel back to 1933!
Well, 1936, but, yeah, those weapons still shouldn't've existed at that point, either.
@@MrAvenger1975 You're correct: Raiders of the Lost Ark was set in 1936, not 1933. I got my years mixed up! That's what happens when I don't fact-check my own comment.
The "Well, ack-tually..." people have crawled out of the woodwork.
You know what else was wrong about Raiders of the Lost Ark? Everything. There is no Ark of the Covenant, and if there were, if you opened it up angels wouldn't fly out and melt everyone's face. And don't get me started on the one with the magic stones in India, or the one with the Holy Grail and the 700 year old Knight...
@@Truth_Teller_101 I think we can all excuse the supernatural science fiction elements of these films. But putting an MP-40 in a 1936-era film is inexcusable and legal grounds for full-refunds.
@@widehotep9257 If you're okay with the "supernatural" elements, then the MP-40 in 1936 is just part of the fantasy. Maybe it's an alternate universe where the MP-40 was developed a few years earlier. The point is it is strange the things you folks choose to get pedantic about and what you are willing to ignore.
As a former shooting instructor in the Army, some years ago, and currently working in the cinema/TV industry, I can go for the most plausible reason : cost.
Among other experiences, I had to advise for a film about the Algerian independance war (roughly from 1954 to 1962), and also acted in the film. Our worst enemy was the lack of money. I had to ask many extras to carry ther weaponry while trying to hide it from the camera. This is even more complicated when filming is done with 4K or 6K (or even 8K sometimes) resolution cameras. As an exemple, I can certify all make-up artists had to switch to new products from 2010 on : cameras were so precise that all "patches" of cosmetics were visible on srceen, event to the non-trained eye.
So... imagine what it means for the producer, when telling the director a choice must be made : either you get those 20 extras you need for 2 days, OR you get all the rifles you need in the exact versions to cope with the historical truth.
Art, whatever field you consider, is made of choices AND concessions. In film production, you shall never be able to get exactly what you need to get your film to the zero-default level it should be. In a perfect world. That does not exist. In this galaxy, at least.
On that filming I mentionned, we were working with an historian specialized in the Algerian independance war. I spoke to him right during the first production reunion, to tell him we'd have to deal with real production conditions and that would probably take us some steps away from the truth. He said that, in his research, he found so many hard-to-believe things that we most certainly be closer to the truth than we think and at any given moment. He found things he never published, although he witnessed them, because he could not back those elements with hard-proofs, yet they were true.
Other exemples many people have witnessed, with hardly someone complaining... the video game "Assassin's creed Unity". It takes place during the French revolution of 1789 (there were many actually, not just one !).
In the game you can see a blue-white-red flag, supposedly a French flag... but it's not. Because the triple-colour one we have now did not exist. It was the "Marine Royale" flag from 1794, then the "Armée de terre" flag from 1812 (with 2 exceptions around 1815/1820), but became the official flag of the country in 1830... a 41 years difference ! During the revolution lots of flags were flown, many of them with the red and blue (colours of Paris) but barely any white (colour of the King).
Also in the game, on the Cathédrale Notre-Dame the famous arrow-tip shaped spike is visible on its roof. Of course, everyone knows this piece of architecture, because everyone saw it burn then collapse in April 2019 during the huge fire destroying the whole roof and a part of the cathedral.
Yes, but... this roof-spike is a late add-on to the original cathedral, and is was designed then installed by Eugène Viollet-le-Duc, a more-than-famous XIX th century French architect who specialized in restoring monuments all over Europe. But also had a "weakness" of placing little extras here and there, so his signature would remain forever. In Carcassonne, he added rooftops to all the towers of the (sublime !) Medieval City when restoring it... when none of the original towers had a roof ! In New-York, he was supposed to build the inside support of "Liberty enlightening the World" in stones, because he loved stones and thought it was the only way to do a proper job for this statue. But, of course, it was also a way to leave his imprint on the monument. Unfortunately (or not) he passed away before construction began, and Bartholdi (the sculptor) was clever enough to sollicitate Gustave Eiffel (yes, THAT very one) and ask him to do the "skeleton" we can see today. And he did it with puddled iron because it was his material of choice and the only one, according to him, able to withstand the strong winds of the New-York bay... how clever !
So, what we see in the video game - dated in the period in 1789/1794 - is a cathedral roof-spike from 1860... weird, wrong, inaccurate, etc. But (because there is a "but" to this) this is no mistake, but a choice on purpose. The person in charge of the historical coherence and accuracy clearly said she wanted to keep the player (or viewer) in a familiar environment. Designing a spikeless cathedral or one with the medieval iteration of the roof-spike (demolishes around 1793, after remaining in very a bad condition for years and about to collapse) was a bad idea, according to her.
I rather am your typical science-driven picky and rigorous type of guy. When advising on a film set, this is even more strict at times (I have dozens of exemples). But I understand the choice of this artist, to give a tiny twist to reality so she would have more people engaged in the game. This is also how you sometimes get more people involved than you ever thought you could.
The real tasty twist is Ubisoft (the French company behind this game, whose Montréal branch designed it for its majority) donated 500000 Euro for restoring/reconstructing the Cathédral and launched a temporary free-donwload for the game after the fire. And guess what will be back atop the roof... yes, just that !
You are legitimate with your analysis, but we must be careful not depriving our spectators from enjoying our creations. And we showed no disrespect to those who fought for our freedom in intentionnaly "sowing" some errors here and there. Thanks to these, we managed to create art pieces, not only for art itself, also as a hommage to their work and sacrifices. Without cutting some corners, there would be no nothing.
One of the few comments of this length where I didn't notice the length. Informative and insightful.
4:16 PE and PEM used to come in two varieties, with the Geco style side rail mount and with Smirnsky top mount
10:26 in his memoirs Zaitsev wrote that he had a Berdan - most likely a shotgun conversion, a super affordable civilian firearm back in 1900-1920. After that the bottom line of affordable guns was replaced with Frolov Mosin shotgun conversions and break action shotguns based on Iver Johnson design.
A Berdan would make sense as by the 1920's the Soviet military would have wanted to remove the Berdan army from its supply chain and fully convert to a standard type of gun. These Berdans would probably have been allowed to be allowed to disappear into civilian use, by "enterprising" commanders for cash.
@@brokeandtired decision to convert and sell Berdans for civilians was made before WWI by tsarist government under influence of captain Sergey Zybin (1862-1942, he was later promoted to major general and did some gun factory work for Bolsheviks), the head of hunting guns repair shop at Royal Tula Arms Factory. The idea was to arm civilian hunters with affordable and reliable centerfire shotguns as well as clean up the warehouse space for newer Mosin rifles. After Civil War soviets have decided to convert Mosins, and my grandfather had a Frolov gun like that. Unlike Berdans, Frolovs often used to come with sporterised stocks.
Berdan 2 rifles likely as it was midt made of them all and well likes by many .
@@brokeandtired Conversion of Berdan No.2 into shotguns was a centralised effort. Most people couldn't afford reliable centerfire guns which would be good for hunting as well as defending cattle and crops from bandits or wildlife. Lots of people back then still used muzzleloaders and couldn't afford proper centerfire guns - for example, a pretty average Auguste Francotte SxS bought by Lenin used to cost 55 roubles (that's around 3 1/3 average factory salaries) and TOZ-B 16 ga shotgun would cost from 30 to 80 roubles. And Tsarist government needed to clear the warehouse space for Mosin rifles. Converted Berdan was three times cheaper than TOZ-B.
After Civil War Soviet government has kept this policy of making simple consumer conversions, but they also developed some new designs and imported guns like Iver Johnson Champion and Sauer VIII.
Any old rifle would be called a berdan back then so it really could be anything but yeah, most likely an actual berdan 2
The hunting "rifle" used is, if I am not mistaken (and I probably not), a Frolov conversion of a Mosin rifle, these were made since 1920 by converting Mosin rifles into a single-shot, smooth-bore weapons intended for civilian use, hunting and guard duty. Called a Frolovka, this conversion was very popular and the name became generalized for all smooth-bore conversions, even the guns from before the revolution, Berdan, Krnka and Arisaka. The front bead sight and the checkering are a common attributes of the Frolov conversion.
Russian Wikipedia has an article about the Frolovka, but, interesting enough, only with Japanese language option, probably because of the Arisaka converted rifles.
But those still fired 7,62x54R on a smoothbore, or were bored-out to fire very small shotgun shells?
@@me.ne.frego. smoothbore 32, 28, 24 or (rarely) 20 and 16 gauge, chamber length 70 мм, rarely - 65 мм. Source - Wikipedia.
czcams.com/video/699Tg0pRjkA/video.html Hope the link works, one of these conversions on CZcams.
Another one, in action czcams.com/video/rq1rIIYj0uM/video.html
Maxim belts were used as makeshift bandoliers to carry ammo for rifles, not to feed them into machinegun.
Right - but skipping every other round, all the way around the belt?
@@RyTrapp0You right, it's weird. Probably filmmakers didn't knew really what they were doing
@@RyTrapp0It looks cooler that way.
@@RyTrapp0 easier to grab and pull out a round when they are spaced out?
@@fuzzy1dkIt would distribute the weight more evenly if you don't have enough ammo to fill the whole thing. An important consideration if you're on the move.
Hello Ian,
I've seen a lot of your videos and first I have to say: Thank you very much, I was always impressed. Very good work every time. Your detailed knowledge is really impressive!
Now to Enemy... Hard to believe, but as luck would have it, I was one of the German weapon masters for this film. I was very fresh on film sets and just a newbie, a beginner, but I learned a lot there. I often gave the gun to Jude Law, Ed Harris, Rachel Weisz and also Ron Perlman. Not to forget the many extras. We arrived with the weapons by truck, I was the driver for a while, there was so much stuff and of course, how could it be otherwise, I even got into a police check once. Stopped by police in Germany with a truck full of weapons. Not a nice feeling... But everything was fine, papers were good, no problems.
Nice little story by the way. Of course the policeman wanted to look in the back when he knew what I had loaded. I showed him a few things, opened a few boxes and some steel cabinets. But he didn't check any weapon numbers or any other details. A cabinet MP38/40, a cabinet PpSh, MG42 & 34, boxes Mosin Nagant, K98k's. some pistols and not forgetting the 4 Maxim machine guns... he just "looked at" everything, didn't "check" anything. As it turned out later, he knew the truck because we parked it at a police station at night and it was from that station. Everyone there knew about this film shoot, it was a big deal, and he was just curious to see with his own eyes this truckload of weapons, these weapons from this film. Police officers are curious people too...
I wasn't the one responsible, but I know that a lot of research was done beforehand, that we determined the sniper weapons for each role and handpicked them. Of course, the director had the final word, and then they were not exchanged for the entire shoot.
I can only confirm Jim Dowdall, who also wrote here. Everyone tried their best to make everything as precise as possible, every detail was taken into account. The fact that such a mistake happened can only be because we simply didn't have this detailed information and the Internet at the time was nowhere near what it is today. You can perhaps see this in the fact that it took almost 25 years for anyone to notice. If I understood correctly, the time difference is not that big. And I also faintly remember that there was once talk of a museum. Not what or how, but that might explain things. Shouldn't be an excuse, a mistake is a mistake.
Your detailed expertise here is simply unbeatable. I suspect that such an error would be easily possible and perhaps even likely with today's Internet.
Two quick things: You're right, Tanja's weapon was actually intentionally not intended to be a military weapon and the fact that Volodya had it later was also intentional. Unfortunately I can't remember the reasons, but I do remember that it was intended that way. And the Marines were dressed by the costume people. They had our weapons, but the straps were from the costume. As far as I know, they only had the Maxim straps on because it looked good.
An example of our work on the details: under no circumstances were we allowed to change anything about the fabric wrapped around the weapons. (Except for the intentional changes over the course of the story) The sniper weapons were always treated and stored separately. When we had to remove it once, I don't remember why, we photographed the thing from all sides beforehand and restored it exactly. And take a few quick photos with your smartphone, not possible, it didn't exist back then...
And something else remarkable by the way: When we needed Russian weapons from that time a few years ago, around 20 years after the filming, this Vazili sniper weapon came out of a gun case. Unchanged, the fabric still wrapped around it! Nobody used this weapon again for “normal” film shooting. Nobody wanted to put this special weapon among the others again. This shows you how special this film was for us.
Even with the extras, we made sure that, if possible, they always got the same weapons so that there were no continuity errors. There are some and I know the reason why, but that stays with me.
My English isn't that perfect, but if I understood it correctly, there were some words of praise. So in the end, thank you very much for that.
I also hope that most people enjoyed the film and that we did a good job overall.
Thank you for these very entertaining stories from behind the curtains!
Overall considering the realities of movie production I think they did a great job as far as arms go. Personally this is one reason why if I could ever get into producing media besides the written word I would choose animation so I could go to that extreme degree of getting the right arms, uniforms, vehicles, etc... without having to deal with real world issues that will crop up whenever do you start to try and source these things.
My real issue with the movie is how it perpetuates the holw Nazi eastern hordes myth and has made a lot of people believe in various myths and false info. Some of which are kinda harmful.
Also, I would be that the "filler plug" in the childhood Mosin is...Douglas Fir. So the prop guy just went down to the Home Depot and got some nice American softwood.
Could be an European hardwood like ash... although I think that they didn't bother that much and probably just used someone's sporterized rifle, that looked just about right to them.
@@toncek9981 Possibly, but I still think it's a Frolov smooth-bore conversion.
Douglas Fir is a fairly common plantation tree in Europe. Whether that was true in Russia at that time period is another matter, but in itself it doesn't seem especially implausible.
Besides he didn't go to Home Depot. He went to Löwe's.
You know north America and Russia pretty much touch geographically. I'm sure you share timber
Maxim belts were used as expedient bandoliers. Either due to shortages of ammo pouches or to look like iconic revolutionary sailors of 1917. Or both.
In general all troops in naval infantry brigades were wearing regular army khakis and only kept striped shirt and naval peakless cap with them. But in this case naval uniforms are correct as sailors of Volga flotilla were pressed into infantry roles as their riverine ships were massacred by Stukas.
Those sailors got "Military Sea Fleet" caps. Not riverine navy. 64th army had Pacific fleet infantry and Moscow naval school marines in Stalingrad.
About the sailors and their maxim mg belts... I saw a ww2 original pic called "Soviet Navy sniper Rad Ayusheyev of the 63rd Infantry Division on his way to reinforcements in the Great Patriotic War (1942)" with his sailor uniform and that loadout. I suspect that maybe it was to carry a few special cartridge like AP or API and to have easy access to them while on their sniper duties (and not as standard troops). Great video BTW, congratulations.
No. During the Revolution, sailors, who were almost entirely on the Red side, used Maxim machine gun belts as ersatz bandaliers. And that look became iconic. Plus, up until WWII, fabric was used in the belt from this machine gun, so there was no problem with this as a closet item. And, well, sailors in the Revolution and in World War II tried to demonstrate their superiority over infantry in every way possible, from style to bravery and ferocity in battle.
Rad Ayusheyev, The Taiga Shaman! A military icon for all Eurasians.
The “German reticle” where you get that cross from the edges defining a virtual box, at the center with no corners, looks like a creative inverse of a movie cinematographer’s viewfinder, where the “box” (film frame size) is defined by the corners only, with the sides missing. So its something that feels real from day to day life even in the the year 2001, but is definitely not.
I am a military historian. That is why I never watch most movies.
@@PalleRasmussen *Enemy at the Gates* is a very emotionally moving movie that motivated me to look into the history of that battle in detail and discover that the movie is a mostly load of claptrap 😹
@@MsZeeZed I am sorry for you. I can reveal that most movies are, including Lord of The Rings, which are fantasy- even that Hollywood managed to screw up.
@@PalleRasmussen Good lord you sound so fun...
@@Clay3613 be glad I will never water my time on you when my reply is finished then. Except to ask; what made you decide to spend time to write a denigrating comment online for someone you did not know and who cares more for a tic on a dog's balls than about your opinion? You could have spent that time telling your GF that you love her, or lifting someone up who needed it, but you decided to be a little bitch instead; why? Should you maybe consider your life choices? For though I do not care about your opinion; I do care about you. Go do something good for someone, be happy instead of mincing words online.
I never noticed the reversed image from the movie poster. Good catch.
REEEEEEALLLLLYYYY?
Not sure where it was, but there used to be a dubbed version of a Wehrmacht sniper training video on CZcams.
Interestingly the lessons they taught there are always ignored by evil Nazi snipers in Hollywood movies.
Stuff like that you switch position after every shot or that you avoid tempting but obvious and hard to escape positions like bell towers.
Yeah.
They make German snipers act more like Imperial Japanese snipers, who actually did frequently strand themselves in obvious shooting positions like trees and such.
@@Eye_Of_Odin978 From all I've learned sniping in WW2 didn't look like it is depicted in this "Enemy at the Gates" movie anyways.
99% of sniping was just the same as in WW1, with the sniper sitting in a trench and waiting for someone in the trench on the other side to stick his head out.
They basically were just sentries taking potshots.
Even the concept of a retreating force leaving behind snipers to slow down an advancing enemy rarely happened, because when you can do that, you usually also can set up a proper L-shaped ambush and just wipe out a advancing scouting party like the one in "Saving Private Ryan" for example.
Scattering a landscape with single snipers wasn't really part of the playbook, at least not in the European theater.
@@TrangleC Sounds kinda like what a lot of snipers were doing in the middle east since the 2000s or so. A handful deployed on a roof top, all set up just waiting for targets to make themselves known, that sort of thing.
If you read Capt. C. Shores’ “With British Snipers to the Reich,” he mentions specifically that most reports of “snipers” were nothing more than regular German infantry fighting rear guard actions, and doing it very well. He also describes one of the only times that they ran into actual German snipers while attempting to take a small village. They inflicted a number of casualties, but were eventually forced to displace (using excellent field craft, according to his own account) under artillery fire. He said they escaped without any casualties that the Brits could discern.
I've never understood why anyone would choose a bell tower as a nest.
Unless you're suicidal.😂
Ian you missed the fact that nearly all of the small arms shown in the Stalingrad battle scenes are post war refurbs. The one that vasily is shown with has the post war shellac finish and the post war sling escutcheons. They are solid style pressed in. War time would have only had a piece of sheet metal. The rifle shown that his grandfather had has a pre 1941 low wall receiver too that would not even allow a solid lock up with a pu scope base.
Imperial Mosins had an open front sight. Many, if not all of the WW1 Mosins used by Russians didn’t have the visor thing around front sight either. That front sight actually resembles what a period correct Mosin from the imperial era would look like. Zaitsev appears about 6yo in the opening wolf scene, that would make it roughly 1921, only a few years after the beginning of the revolution, which is most likely what that front sight would have looked like. As far as checkering on the stock, it’s a privately owned rifle, so checkering is not out of the ordinary. The scope insert does give it away though, but kudos to the crew for trying to make it authentic.
I think Ian noted though that it was a m91/30 base rifle they were using though, not a WW1 era Mosin.
Even then the sight is wrong. Look up pictures of the front sights on the Imperial rifles. I had a Finnish 91 with the original Russian sights and it is much different. A small boxy base with a thicker blade that is just flat on top.
The soviet marines likely aren't wearing the maxim belts for the machinegun use, but as an ammo storage for themselfs. Maybe they were underfunded and underequipped and had to resort to using the belts, as they didn't have enought actual ammo pouches. It also seems to be a very common practice as in almost every photo they can be seen wearing those belts in the X cross style, often with rounds missing in various spots on the belt.
It was also the most fashionable look for naval infantry. Just like political officers in 1920s loved the leather jacket/coat + Mauser pistol.
In the early stages of the Great Patriotic War Soviet Naval Infantry were mostly ordinary sailors deployed "straight off the boat".
They were poorly equipped and much of their 7.62×54mm was loaded into Maxim belts.
So they repurposed the Maxim belts as bandoleers. An image that became a propaganda trope.
Hey Ian. i just want to thank you for this kind of content on top of all of your other well researched content. This one is particularly fun for me because of how often these types of congruency errors occur in film and TV.
I have had a standard infantry mosin for years, I just purchased a carbine mosin to add to the collection a few days ago, it would be amazing to complete the "Infantry, carbine, sniper" set for my collection! Thanks for the awesome content as always Ian, keep it up!
Prop department canonicity issues are something I first saw in ZULU, where during the final Zulu charge there are very clearly Lee-Enfield rifles with their bolts removed to look *enough* like Martini-Henrys, likely because they just didn't have enough Martinis around for so many guys!
Yeah, to be honest I didn't notice the Lee Enfields until I saw the arm motion of working a bolt instead of a lever. It seems they generally tried to keep them to the rear. But in two scenes after the troops being in a bundle and reforming they are the closest to the camera.
Not to mention the Webley Mk 6 revolvers.
Could they have been Lee-Metford?
12:15 It's most likely either the wz. 91/98/23 or wz. 91/98/25 carbine. Mosin rifles were available in large quantities after a Polish-Soviet war, and since the standard caliber of the Polish Army at the time was the 7.92mm Mauser, our government decided to put these rifles to use. They were _mauserized_ by being converted to use the 7.92mm ammo, shortened to match the wz. 29 carbine barrel length (600mm) as well as being fitted with Mauser style barrel bands and bayonet lugs. The difference between these two variants is that the 23 pattern had a stacking rod and the 25 pattern had a cleaning rod instead.
The front sight looks weird though, as these rifles retained the original Mosin front sight. It does look like the front sights on Polish Mausers though, so it wouldn't be completely out of place I guess.
Agreed, I think it's a wz. 91/98/23 or 25, with the front barrel band missing (you can even see the wear on the front end of the stock and handguard that could match a Mauser 98 front band) and fitted with some non-standard sight protector.
That front sight jumped out at me as Finish but what your saying makes more sense.
My point exactly. As far as I'm concerned, some 91's converted into 8x57 after some use received KAR98az barrels. I think I saw one on the picture on hands of KOP trooper.
Thank you Ian, great info, as always. Muchas gracias!
Great vid! Love the movie and your knowledge. Can’t wait for your next one.
They shoulda hired you as a consultant Ian.
There are so many movies where they should have spent a few thousand to get someone like Ian to get the weapons right. Annoying to watch something with millions of budget to fuck up something like scopes backwards.
@@vabu94 but why spend thousands if you can't prove ROI? ROI must always be proven before business will make a change. And even then you can only prove that on an individual basis so it'll take a very long time to adopt.
well it was a movie made at 2001, I don't think Ian are well known as now at that time *shrugs
@@General_Ward
I fully understand ROI, but seems sad that the companies making and directing the movies have zero passion to check historical or technical details, especially regarding firearms.
Movies always have consultants for this type of things, but they get ignored often by a variety of reasons.
9:44 I think the German iron cross night be a more apt description of what those sight hairs look like imo
As always, Ian, very interesting. You are so informative 👏
Good morning from south central BC, thanks for the video. For me this is very educational and enjoyable at the same time. Please feel free to do more any time you're so inclined. Stay well.
One movie with unwarranted gun errors is 2021 The Forgotten Battle.
With troops going to fight and back with Lee Enfield MkIV, but filmed in all action shots using SMLE.
That's downright puzzling as it happens in every single scene.
😆
Probably someone said "No, these are too valuable to let them jump around and crawl about with, give them the SMLEs for the action scenes.
14:31 There are many photographs that show that Russian sailors, as in the films, use machine gun belts and use bolt-action rifles, automatic rifles without a Maxim machine gun. These sailors used machine gun belt as bandolier.
No stripper clips available?
Another great video, very interesting and informative.
I think this is a great movie, I only clicked on this because I love this channel and am always interested in what Ian has to say about the history of firearms.
It’s so cool you commented on this, thank you Jim
Concerning the Reticle i remember a number of WW2 video games of the time had similar reticles to what is seen in the movie for their german sniper rifles. Dont know where the initial idea came from but it was prevalent in media of the time.
I'm literally watching enemy at the gates right now. Have to give this a watch. I still enjoy the film even with its inaccuracies.
if you dont like movies for their inaccuracies, dont watch videos that werent filmed on location.
I always thought Enemy at the Gates was a disappointing film. It didn't feel real or capture me in the same way as Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line.
@@widehotep9257 In terms of gritty realism it falls short I agree (especially in comparison to saving private Ryan). But as a dramatic exploration of themes such as jealousy and heroism I love it. And the setting is very underrepresented, especially considering the undeniable impact of the Soviet victory in Stalingrad. But each to their own.
@@thewisecow6323 Thanks for your thoughts. I haven't watched it since it came out. I'll give it another shot with your review in mind!
Great video Ian. Love these breakdowns.
Ian, great talk!
If the maxim guns were chambered in 7.62x54R couldn’t the marines in theory have been using the maxim belts to hold loose ammo that wasn’t just ready to go in stripper clips?
In regards to the sporterized PU mosin; I'm guessing that at the time this movie was filmed (what was it, late 90's early 00's?) the production team for the studio probably had a couple of PU mosins in stock that had been sporterized after the war, saying "hey why not save a few bucks and throw it in for the childhood wolf scene?" and just painted the metal parts of the mounting bracket and hoped the audience's suspension of disbelief would take care of the rest.
The Flashback scene being a sporterized PU is also interesting because it looks to be one of the early (pre-36) "hex" receivers...PUs (at least the proper, original ones) were high-wall round receivers.
The front sight on that one rifle reminds me a lot of the front sight of my Enfield No.4 Mk1* that I've been restoring.
I went with the one that has a screw-adjustable front sight vs the other kind where you basically need a workbench to adjust it, but both have those big curved wing sight guards.
12:02 Hey Ian, have you considered that this gun could be a Polish wz.91/98/23 (a M1891 Mosin converted to 8mm Mauser, cut down to carbine length and fitted with Mauser 98 style barrel bands and bayonet lug), with the front barrel band missing (you can even see that the stock and handguard are worn down in the spot where the Mauser front band would fit) and fitted with a sight protector?
Sailor with half-loaded belts - this is to carry ammo for the rifle, and single-load; not for Maxim.
I am sure i saw photos and posters of soviet marines with belts fully loaded.
Or to reload stripper clips.
Really enjoyed this episode, thank ya!
Thanks for the good info.
Would love more movie breakdowns :D
Is it not possible that the Marines wearing the machine gun belts were just using them to hold their rifle ammo since the Mosin and the Soviet Maxim shot the same round?
Would love to see more of these, Ian! Great job.
Excellent informative video Sir, thank you
A bit like the left handed Winchester in the classic "Billie the Kid" photo, and the Walther LP53 air pistol in the poster for the James Bond movie " Dr No"
Well, the “left-handed Winchester” is simply because photos of the era were reversed by the process. It’s not an aesthetic choice for a poster, it’s just how they were developed.
I have seen a book by a friend where the publisher wanted a rifle on the cover, and they flipped the image for aesthetic purposes… which put the hammer on the left hand side.
I’ve also seen a painting where the artist, a very knowledged person in the subject matter, did the same thing and didn’t seem to realize it.
I recently watched The Good Shepherd, and there's a scene that takes place right after the fall of Berlin, that depicts a couple of Soviet soldiers with SKSs. One was even a Yugo.
Apparently pre-production test SKS rifles did make it into service late in the war: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKS
As always, your encyclopedic firearms knowledge doesn’t fail to impress. Keep up the good work Ian!!
I have a m91/30 that was made in Tula factory 1943. It shoots like a charm. I love bringing it to the range
Finally Ian’s replaced the Casio F91 with a Marathon GSAR, good choice.
Perhaps the best dive watch ever made imo.
Username checks out...
I had to look up Casio F91, Marathon GSAR and Chronometer to understand what you an Ian were on about. Before that, I thought you were discussing guns 🙈
Funnily enough I came to the comment section to see if anyone had asked what watch Ian was wearing, because I'd only ever seen him in an F-91W before. Glad it's been covered already 👍🏻
First thing I noticed as well, only because im wearing the 36mm version. Marathon divers are great, tough watches.
Maybe the marines we’re using the maxim belts as an improvised bandolier?
I have been waiting years for this upload. What a video Ian
Idk how many movies could actually be analyzed in this way but I really like the format of these videos, more please!
I'm working nights, and I need sleep. Why did you do this to me, Gun Jesus?
Fall asleep to his voice, dream 💤 well
Toughest battles (learning obscure firearms history) to his strongest soldier (guy in sweatpants in bed)
I, too, work nights, but I've already slept. So I woke up to the most welcome sight of another of Ian's videos to watch while I ate what was either breakfast or lunch, depending on how you look at it.
The gun Jesus works in mysterious ways
Re the partisan carbine.
As the front shifted, the Red Army often assimilated partisans directly into its ranks. Deploying them as infantry with minimal re-equipment, other than a uniform.
If they had a functional weapon, firing standard issue ammunition, an ex-partisan might well keep using it, until they, or it, became a casualty.
Amusing. This is like an evening in watching films with the lads, but without the beer.
There’s another scene where Tonya is carrying a full-size mosin and actually has an awkward time navigating a scene with it slung over her shoulder.
It’s possible they intentionally showed her assimilating into the regular army, and in the process her shorter handier carbine got traded to someone who was tired of dealing with a full-length 91/30
The waybi see it is the maxim belts may be being used as a bandolier, and they only loaded every other slot so the rounds would be easier to grab
Just my thoughts
I had the same thought.
Well done Ian, well done. Kudos to you. It has to be said, you would make an exceptional movie gun advisor for history and action movies🎉.
Damn good video
On the topic of Konig's reticle, to me it seems pretty reminiscent of the reticle I've often seen used on XM21 rifles, though after a little digging I've been unable to pull up any specifics on the model of optic used, especially given how often it varied.
i think rachel weisze has a polish Model 91/98/25 carbine basically an experimental mosin, rebuilt with some k98 type parts to make it run 8mm mauser
“I put snow in my mouth.”
That line always cracked me up.
That’s apparently what Simo Hayha (Finnish sniper) did, so I’m guessing it’s a reference to that.
@@FA_363 There are even more myths about Simo than there are depicted in Enemy at the Gates.
Was skiing last week, and this line kept going to my mind 😂
Great video Ian As a soviet ww2 reenactor we love to pick this movie apart but at the same time I also credit it with getting into the hobby.
Anyway maxim belts I have a few things I would like to add.
I always thought that they were used just to feed maxim guns but based on original photos this does not seem to always be the case. The thing with naval infantry is they are not really "marines" in the US or UK sense they are more sailors who volunteered or were conscripted into fighting on land (Zietsev was one actually although he had full army gear and a posh41 when he came to the cityper his book). Anyway many sailors did not always have ammo pouches avalible. As such they had to find other ways to carry ammo. I have seen several of photos of RKKF Sailors using belts with gaps between rounds. It appears they were using them as some sort of early chest rig. It also harkens back to the Russian Civil War when revolutionary sailors allegedly did this (basically it looks cool). It also does work as a way to carry extra rounds on your chest.
As for Finn mosins I totally agree its not correct but in answer to questions about units thay were in Finland the 138th Rifle Division did fight there before Stalingrad.
Hope this information is useful
I have a 91/30 pre-war all numbers matching with tula markings and it is a carbine. Absolutely love it.
being left handed is bourgeoisie, didn't you know?
In a sad way, that sounds like something they would have said! 😂
@@The_Red_Off_Road ; "In the Soviet Union, all left-handed students were forced to write with their right hand in the Soviet educational system."
@@FirstDagger so that’s why they don’t have any baseball over there? You can’t have a good game of baseball without a few southpaws. Freaking commies…
well there you go lol, big brain Russians at it again.@@FirstDagger
@@FirstDagger To be fair, that was literally the entire world until like, the 1970s. The old school way of thinking was that left-handdness is sinister, or incorrect. Going to school in the US in the early 2000s, I was forced to write with my right hand
They could have used German nr5 reticle for K0enig 8x Zeiss scope instead . That was 3 post with a thin wire with a dot In the middel .
Digging the different firearm topics Ian is doing recently!
There is a picture of a Soviet naval Infantry guy (Radna Ayusheev (1922-1944) Soviet sniper from Siberia and naval infantry man of Northern Fleet (63rd Naval Infantry Brigade).) clearly using the crossed ammo belts to store odd rounds of rifle ammo on the front for convenience. There are even PPSH guys with the crossed ammo belts. So it is webbing of a kind. Alternate rounds to look fancy, vaguely possible.
Have you ever been approached by a prop gun company or some filmmaker to assist in making a film more accurate with regard to guns in the movie?
Also the nagant scope didnt have graduations in it like the poster shows.
I loved the movie, and am a proud owner of a 1936 PE sniper. Most PU snipers aren't actual historic snipers, but modified infantry rifles because, at the time, the market value between the infantry and the PU was substantial. I am sure Hollywood picked the PU because PE and PEM versions were almost unobtainable.
Great video ❤
The rifle from the wolf hunting scene at the very beginning of the film always confused me. It would make sense for it to be an original M1891 Mosin or even a Berdan but it’s not either of those
I have this feeling the reticle was so you can cut between the characters and their scopes and keep straight who's POV you're seeing. The extra bars remind me of the sight Operation Flashpoint had on the M21, where they were meant to be used to get the right zoom for a standing or prone target, based on the ART scope (which would match up with the game's 1985 setting).
Great job! Konig's scope is an EBRA X8 but civilian model (I own the exact same one) and the reticle is the exact same as the Mosin PU.
I've been a military history buff since childhood, and worked in the museum field for over twenty years. I'm so grateful I can just enjoy history-based movies for the sake of a good story.
For the marines and the maxim belts, only plausible thing i could think of is they are using them as ersatz ammo carrying belts for their own rifles as they plan on doing a lot of shooting at aircraft or targets at a distance while on the boats
Come to think of it, Is there a movie that portrays sniping in a realistic way?
I hear The Hurt Locker being thrown around a lot, when it comes to this question. I'm not really a knowledgeable gun guy, but the movie itself was fantastic and I really enjoyed the tension and build-up in said sniper scene. They utilize spotters, it's long range and they need to make lots of minute corrections in order to hit the "bad guy". I think it's a Barrett M82 variant versus some Dragunov SVD derivative. Again, I'm only a casual movie guy interested in the mechanics :)
A list would be nice.
@@CalamityCain czcams.com/video/dxB5M1L2I9s/video.htmlsi=my8IGyN9btQQ8GmT
Siege of Jadotville, obviously
@@CalamityCainThe one glaring problem with that scene is Hawkeye and the Falcon engaging the enemy from the same spot where the previous M82 operator (Voldemort) got killed.
14:35 could be just using a Maxim belt to haul catriges around. Kinda as an alternative for ammo pouches. Filling every second catrige pocket distributes the weight better.
the use of M91/30 PU rifles for Soviet snipers during the Battle of Stalingrad might raise an eyebrow for those of us who delve deep into historical accuracy, but let's face it, the PU was iconic and easily recognizable
Just grateful that the armorer on the set of "Enemies At The Gate" was more competent than the one on the set of "Rust."
I would give a bit of wiggle in Koenig's rifle.
He is a fictional character, but painted as a noble hunters turned sniper.
So he may not have an army-issue rifle, but his own customized personal Mauser brought from home with a handmade mount/scope.
There would have been no reason for a hand made mount or scope for a Mauser 98 as they existed prior to WWII for hunting. The 98 Mauser was as designated a '98 as in the 1898 date of adoption by the Imperial German Army, and had seen service in WWI as the Gewehr 98 and other designations prior to the K98k of WWII.
@@artemusp.folgelmeyer4821 you're right, I wasn't clear.
As you rightly point out, Mauser 98s were a common civilian hunting rifle, and plenty of commercial mounts and accessories were on the market.
The rich, spoiled Junker may have his own 'civilian' rifle, accuratized and with an expensive optics and mount fitted by a civilian armorer: he doesn't get a standard army rifle with a standard army mount issued in a time frame.
Great video brother. Also nice Marathon. Just picked one up myself.
I'm a big fan of these videos, it's kind of neat seeing all the guns used in a film and breaking them down (also love IMFDB, I'll just scroll through different pages of media I've seen or played and go "neat").
Speaking of which, I find it kind of weird that an MP-41 made it into the film, considering how rare they are (I know Romania participated in the battle of Stalingrad, but that's very much a German using it).
I read somewhere, that the likes of major König often used regular hunting rifles and scopes for sniping. Does kind of make sence, using a weapon you are used to, and trust.
Mauser 98 was a super-common hunting rifle at the time, however most hunters had them with sport stocks (not all of them, some, especially those that were meant for mountain hunts, had full stocks, like the Westley Richards rifle of count Alfred Potocki), and they could come in different calibers, 8x57, 7x57 and 7x64 being among the most common.
All of the "top scoring" German snipers of the war used military equipment, usually a Kar98k with a 4x scope.
You were trained in the use of your rifle, a rifle which was also more sturdy than 90 percent of the hunting rifles of the time, so no need to bring a rifle that could fail on you.
However, lower echelon (so not snipers) troops sometimes needed a rifle to "snipe" the enemy. It was therefore left to the field armors and officers to find means suited for this task, since kar98k ZF were of high demand. Early in the war they indeed used a very small amount of hunting commercial rifles. Afterwards using captured soviet equipment became the norm. Some top scorers made their first mark with a soviet telescopic rifle before sniper school.
Something which was done however is building sniper rifle with commercial scope and mounts, but they were issued not purchased by individual snipers.
The real Zaitsev looks a bit like Jesse Plemons after eating Matt Damon.
Top comment, haha!
*I was hoping someone would cover this one day..Thanks Ian!*
I love this format of videos so much
Everything Wrong with "Enemy at the Gates”.
period
It's a terrible movie that people treat as an accurate documentary. I frequently have to correct people who think that the Red Army sent unarmed men into combat, then massacred them for retreating.
@@TammoKorsai Or, it's a good MOVIE that "the internet" loves to complain about because they're the ones treating it as a documentary.
@@BleedingUraniumno it actually just sucks and is super cheesy.
@@BleedingUranium No, really, a lot of the public regard the movie as fact, even when warned otherwise.