Brad Pitt Goes to 'War' with S&W M1917

ordnanceguy

ordnanceguy

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2002
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
3,845
Location
Sunny Florida, USA
Gentlemen:

For those of you who have not kept up with your Hollywood Reporter subscriptions I can now advise that Brad Pitt will be coming back to the silver screen in November, 2014. Pitt is starring in FURY, a story about an M4 Sherman tank crew in the 2nd Armored Division in the ETO during WW2. I am informed that the production went to great lengths to get the atmospherics and details correct. Filmed in the UK it even features a genuine, operational German Tiger tank borrowed from the Bovington Tank Museum.

The photo below, credited to People magazine, shows Pitt on the set. I have been informed that Pitt's revolver is a Smith M1917 which has had Plexiglas "sweetheart" stocks added to it. The holster is not USGI and was custom made for the film. The revolver is one detail that Hollywood either overlooked or chose for dramatic purposes as the TO&E for armor crews in 1944 would not have called for M1917s. Nonetheless, it is always nice to see a Smith at the cinema and since I am a sucker for WW2 films I will be in line to see this one in November.


 
Register to hide this ad
Certainly better than that flake Tom Cruise stating that with all the pre-film infantry training he receives for movies that he and other actors are just as savy and well trained as Army and Marine infantry. I think he may have used the term "warriors" I couldn't believe when I read this.

The guy has both feet firmly planted in mid-air!

When Mark Wahlberg, who's also done a lot of war movies read this, he went ballistic on Cruise. I tend to agree with Mr. Wahlberg.

This looks like an interesting movie, Charlie.
How can one resist it with one of the "tankers" carrying an S&W Mod 1917 with sweetheart grips!!:D
 
When my Air Corps doctor Father in Law was getting some indoctrination in DC prior to going to Africa, he was issued two revolvers. He couldn't remember if they were Smiths or Colts but he was sure they were 45 ACPs.
Later he was on a Pan-American flying boat headed across the South Atlantic. The non-combat air Corps officer sitting next to him complained that nobody would issue him the a Side arm. So my father-in-law replied they issued me two, I'll just give you one of mine.
 
Charlie,

You may find this of interest... but I bet you already knew. 1917's were soldiering on well after they were officially removed from the inventory.



This Colt's 1917 served with a family friend in Desert Storm.



This Marine's father told me that the notches in the stock were not there before he deployed.



Drew
 
ordnanceguy said:
Gentlemen:

For those of you who have not kept up with your Hollywood Reporter subscriptions I can now advise that Brad Pitt will be coming back to the silver screen in November, 2014. Pitt is starring in FURY, a story about an M4 Sherman tank crew in the 2nd Armored Division in the ETO during WW2. I am informed that the production went to great lengths to get the atmospherics and details correct. Filmed in the UK it even features a genuine, operational German Tiger tank borrowed from the Bovington Tank Museum.

The photo below, credited to People magazine, shows Pitt on the set. I have been informed that Pitt's revolver is a Smith M1917 which has had Plexiglas "sweetheart" stocks added to it. The holster is not USGI and was custom made for the film. The revolver is one detail that Hollywood either overlooked or chose for dramatic purposes as the TO&E for armor crews in 1944 would not have called for M1917s. Nonetheless, it is always nice to see a Smith at the cinema and since I am a sucker for WW2 films I will be in line to see this one in November.

http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Ordnanceguy/media/Movie Pics/BradPittinFURYed_zpse092932b.jpg.html
Click to expand...

Filmed in the UK??? Did they use broomsticks instead of real guns???

John
 
Disappointment. I though that Tommy was going to play SGT FURY. They shought issue Cruise rubber guns only! BAH!!!

Charlie
 
When I was maybe 12, Mother had a repairman in to fix the refrigerator. We got to talking and this guy was in Patton's 3rd Army, part of a Sherman crew. He told me that they all had .45 autos, but that many also wore captured German pistols under their coats. The idea was to not have German snipers see the guns on their belts. Also, if captured, they might be able to produce the hidden pistol and turn the tables.

I've seen M-1917 revolvers on WW II tank crews, but the photos may well have all been taken during training in the USA. But they supposedly could carry either those or .45 autos, although the autos certainly predominated in war zones.

I've seen those "theater" made plexiglass grips with photos under them on both pistols and knives. It's certainly possible that Pitt's character could have a 1917 with such grips on it and that privately acquired holster. The Airborne soldier who wrote some excellent books about his days in France and Holland carried both a nickled .45 auto sent by his father and a captured P-38 and kept them after the war. If he's still living, I bet he has them now. One of his titles is, "The Road Past Arnhem." First name is Donald. Anyone know his last name? Oh: Burgett. The books are really good.

The best account of tank warfare that I've read is, "Brazen Chariots", by a South African officer serving in the Royal Tank Regiment. Major Robert Crisp, D.S.O., M.C. Crisp fought in what they called Honey tanks, US-supplied M-3 Stuarts. He quipped that they were a honey of a tank and the name was overheard and caught on. But the German armor in N. Africa was superior, apart from the M-3's speed and manueveribility. Crisp was eventually severely wounded and his best friend killed when a shell slammed into his tank. But he had already become a decorated hero, as you see from the initials after his name.

Crisp mentioned using his .38 revolver, but I don't think he said if it was an Enfield, Webley, or S&W. Burgett mentioned seeing a British tank column stopped for tea in Normandy, and those tankers wore S&W .38-200's. I've seen a number of pics of Commonwealth troops with those.

The few photos that I've seen of M-1917 .45's in war zones were in the hands of MP's. But some tankers could surely have had them. Bill Jordan, the gun writer, personally told me that he hunted Japanese in caves while armed with an S&W .45 and a 12 ga. shotgun. He preferred those from his Border Patrol days. In WW II, he was a Marine officer.

Col. Chas. Askins wore a .38 New Service Colt with a cutaway trigger guard in the war, and Jeff Cooper told me that he began in the Pacific with a Colt SAA .45, with which he shot one Japanese who was coming over a log. He meant to fire twice, but the first shot was so "positive" that the second wasn't needed. He later went to the .45 auto, for which he became a leading spokesman, of course. I've seen photos of both guns. The SAA had stag grips and adjustable sights, I think from King's. It resembled the later New Frontier.

Marine Sgt. John Basilone, MH used his M-1911 .45 extensively against the Japanese during his famed fight on Guadalacanal. If you don't know about him and his Medal of Honor, look him up on Wiki. Alas, he was later killed in action.

I think the most remarkable use of a sidearm in WW II may have been the case of an airman on a B-17 who used an S&W .38 to shoot down an attacking ME-109! The US airman's .50 cal. machinegun had run dry and he was desperate to kill the German pilot. Apparently, his bullet got through the propellor and did just that! That also reflects on just how close Luftwaffe planes came to US bombers.

I can't recall where I read that account. Does anyone else know the details or the airman's name? No idea if the .38 was personally owned, but it was probably the usual M&P model. It was surely a remarkable feat! I hope he got an award.
 
Oh: Tom Cruise is a little...unusual. But keep in mind that he owns and flies a P-51 Mustang.

I liked the way he single-handedly cocked his PPK on a desk in, Valkerie, where he played a German colonel who'd lost an arm in an RAF strafing attack in North Africa. The planes were P-40's, Kittyhawks. Cruise is said to have insisted on that detail.

He isn't all bad. And he's quite bold. He does his own stunts, some of which I'd think one would have to be daft to do. And I like the way he paid the hospital bill for a lady who was in a traffic accident. (He was a witness but not involved.)

I read that he's doing a sequel to, "Top Gun." I wonder if they'll use F-18 Hornets or Super Hornets this time?
 
I don't think any movie is "perfect" but if you take it as a whole . . . Cruise and the rest in "Saving Private Ryan" at least presented the story of D-Day and brought it to the public theaters where a younger generation could be exposed to the invasion and what it did. I'm not saying it was "perfect" nor is any movie - every one can be picked apart.

Unfortunately, the majority of the veterans who were lucky enough to survive such campaigns as D-Day, Iwo, etc. would never discuss what they had gone through - not even with their families. That generation is fast fading just as the veterans of World War I did. I was lucky enough to interview may WW I vets - they were in their 70s at the time and I recorded stories that they had never ever discussed with their families. If the younger generation is going to have any appreciation of what our folks went through, they only way they are going to get it is through movies - heaven help "em if they ever read a book about it. I can well remember that many of the survivors of D-Day never spoke of it until the 50th Anniversary and even then, it was difficult for them.

My father in law went in to N Africa as a replacement and then moved up to Italy (34th Red Bull Division). He never discussed anything with his children. For some reason, he did discuss a few things with me and they had a mighty rough time of it. He was a BAR man. After he passed, I did some more research on his division. It was interesting in that in one source, it was estimated that the life of a BAR man in that division, once they entered into an engagement, was 15 seconds.

I'm not a fan of Pitt either and Hollywood does take some unauthentic measures, but, if it gets the story out there, then it serves a very valid purpose. That generation is fast fading and they went through a lot - the Depression, the war and everyone sacrificed - both at home and in the service. Their generation furnished "leaders" - those we have today, can't hold a candle to them. I'm a firm believer that's why this country is in such a mess that it is . . . . and I firmly believe that they all earned the title of the "Greatest Generation".
 
I have no problem with the preparation, or acting in these movies. :)

I am troubled by a narcissistic actor who actually believes he's combat tough and a warrior because he takes "movie boot camps" before filming. It just amazes me.
 
ordnanceguy said:
The holster is not USGI and was custom made for the film. The revolver is one detail that Hollywood either overlooked or chose for dramatic purposes as the TO&E for armor crews in 1944 would not have called for M1917s.
Click to expand...

I think there was a good bit of leeway allowed GIs in their choice of sidearms. Some of them received personal arms sent from home.

I know for a fact that the father of a good friend of mine who landed in France on D-Day "liberated" a Luger and used it for the duration of the war, after having given (or traded for goods) his GI .45 to another soldier.

I don't think command personnel much cared what sort of weapon GIs used to kill Germans, as long as the job got done. And regarding non-conventional sidearms...just look at George Patton. Neither of his holsters were government issue, not to mention his Colt six-shooter and .45, both with ivory grips.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top