Movies | TV | Books | Quotes Easter Eggs | Drink Recipes
[Slipups.com Logo] The Slip-Up ArchiveTM
SLIPUPS.COM
Google
Web slipups.com
Home > Movies > Q - T > Saving Private Ryan Bloopers Add a Slip-Up | Help
   
Saving Private Ryan - Two Grenades= One Explosion
Nearing the end of the Normandy landing, when Captain Miller's squad has reached the back of the bunker, they throw two grenades down. Seconds later, we only hear one explosion.
Special Requirements:
The Movie
Avg. Rating:    1.6 of 10 - (79 votes cast)
Your Rating:   
Contributed By:
Anonymous on 07-25-2000
Reviewed By:
Webmaster

Pictures Click on the thumbnails for a full-size image, or send in your own
Be the first to send us your picture of this Slip-Up!
Comments:
shroomey writes:
My old English teacher fought in Vietnam, which, granted, was an entirely different war, but in his stories he told us he usually made a reference to "the crappy WW2-era grenades they were issued that he said "...exploded anywhere from the second you pulled the pin to thirty seconds later, if they exploded at all." This "Slip-up" to me is just a little taste of what it was really like, with the grenades either detonating at the same time, or one of them not detonating at all.
8 of 9 people found this comment helpful. Did you? Yes
jon2001 writes:
I think that you do actually get two explosions. The first grenade goes off slightly before the second, and closer to the camera. I think that the noise and smoke from the first all but covers the second grenade going off by the doorway of the bunker.
4 of 4 people found this comment helpful. Did you? Yes
BigJ0nKnows writes:
Ive watched that scene a lot and it always bothered me that there was not a more pleasent and rytmic "BOOMPIF_KERBOOMPIF". It is possible that the timing mechanisms were fluked and the grenades went off at close to the same time. This is bad filmaking, and I know Steve wouldnt set the charges up simultaneously on purpose (you dont think the actors were allowed to hold live grenades do you?). I do not think that one grenade ignited the other, since they were thrown a good enough distance apart that it wouldnt ignite the other grenade, but rather blow the mechanism apart. This would result in one grenade not firing... OR the other could have been a dud, there were alot of those made then. And now for something compleatly different: Everyone with a computer go and play the Half-life mod DOD www.dayofdefeatmod.com is where you can download it. You will need to have either bought Half-life or counter-strike to play the game. By the way its a WWII 1st person shooter with realistic damage statistics. You get to play maps like OHMAHA and CAIEN, and can play as an allies or axis forces. Its really fun and im not geting paid to do this. GO play if you can!
4 of 5 people found this comment helpful. Did you? Yes
MattTheBrave writes:
ok first off, grenades cant ingite other grenades. heres the reason: when a Mark II World War II era grenade explodes it sends shrapnel flying right? you'd think the shrapnel would impact the other grenade, puncture it, and cause a simultaneus spark that would ignite the other grenade. BUT, the material that the Mark II grenade is made of is a kind of metal called iron. go to your hardware store, buy a piece of iron, and smash it with a hammer as many times as you feel like and it will not spark. simply because iron does not spark. so the explanation for this so called "slipup" is that the fragment penetrating the second grenade went inside the grenade and simply destroying the igniting mechanism, causing the other grenade not to ignite. thank you
1 of 1 people found this comment helpful. Did you? Yes
Welshman writes:
Actually the Mark II grenades (Despite what the first post said) were known to be EXTREMELY reliable. Although there were cases of some going off early and some not going off at all probability states that it would go off and normally at the correct time. In this scene there are probably not 2 explosions because one did not go off. For as reliable as they were, there were some that didnt, and this scene plays into the realism of that whether there was meant to be 2 explosions or just one.
1 of 1 people found this comment helpful. Did you? Yes
Matrix_Forensics_Laboratories writes:
Now, correct me if im wrong, but I remember that the two were thrown at times very close to each other. In those times, they did not have complex electronics, so those black 'rubber' looking grenades would go off at slightly different times (some were killed attempting to throw a faulty one), and if thrown at times close to one another, there could be the fluke were they both go off at the same time. (So note that they do not have an accurate timing system). Or there could have been a slight echo, as one goes off, then the other. Or, one could have blown up, and explosion could have made the other blow up at the same time.
0 of 0 people found this comment helpful. Did you? Yes
ymeng2000 writes:
Nothing wrong with it. The first one ignited the second one.
1 of 2 people found this comment helpful. Did you? Yes
dj_heffalump writes:
Why do you people make everything so complicated? So maybe one DID ignite the other, or maybe the went off at the same time because the TIMING MECHANISMS weren't the same, or whatever . . . . . MAYBE!: one exploded, and the other exploded a few seconds later before the explosion died down. This would result in one long explosion, both in look and sound. Simple explanation, no rocket physics, no chemistry or calculus.
1 of 2 people found this comment helpful. Did you? Yes
jamma the war expert writes:
well actually if you would know about military functions you would find that when a hand grenade goes off it explodes so one of the two blew the other grenade up
0 of 0 people found this comment helpful. Did you? Yes
Conrad writes:
Okay - one grenade goes off first. The blast from that disables the other grenade. Hence only one explosion. The "Blast-Disables-Explosive-Device" principle underlies a lot of bomb-disposal work. The probability of one Mills-bomb pattern hand grenade "igniting" another one is vanishingly remote.
0 of 0 people found this comment helpful. Did you? Yes


Register - My Settings - FAQ - Privacy Policy - About Us - Contact Us