MovieChat Forums > Hell Is for Heroes (1962) Discussion > Reese's Ammo Belt And Being Unshaven

Reese's Ammo Belt And Being Unshaven

posted 12 years ago by davidwile
4 replies | jump to latest

Hey folks,

I just watched this again for the first time in a few years, and I was wondering about a few things with Reese.

First he reports for duty in a rear area with a clean uniform and with neck tie, but he has a five day growth of beard. I can't imagine his showing up in a rear area and in that class of uniform without being shaved. Does that seem a bit off to anyone else?

The other thing is that he wears an empty ammo belt throughout the whole film - including when he first shows up in his clean shirt and tie uniform. The ammo belt is the kind used by soldiers issued M-1 Garand rifles. The ten pockets in the ammo belt are designed to each hold one eight round clip of 30-06 ammo. Reese does not use an M-1 Garand rifle; he uses an M-3 Grease Gun which uses long .45 ACP magazine sticks, and they would not in any way fit in his ammo belt pockets. Also, his ammo belt pockets appeared to be empty throughout the whole film. He used the Grease Gun throughout the whole film and at no time ever used an M-1 Garand. Given this, why was he wearing that ammo belt? It simply cannot hold his M-3 magazines.

And that raises another question. Where exactly did he keep his extra M-3 Grease Gun mags? I do not mean the three mags he had taped together and inserted in his Grease Gun. He had to have more than those three magazines. In a hot firefight, he would go through his three mags quite quickly, and he would probably had three or even six more magazines taped together for quick use. Each magazine held 30 rounds. If he had nine mags, that would only be 270 total rounds for immediate use in a firefight, and 270 rounds in a Grease Gun would not be too many for a firefight. I just wonder where he had more mags than the three he had taped together.

Please do not take my questions as criticisms of the film. I have liked this film since I first saw it in 1962, but I did not remember about Reese showing up with a beard and his use of a Garand ammo belt. Seeing them tonight, I could not keep from wondering about these things.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

[–] Jefbecco-1 11 years ago

I think ultimately you just have to figure the answer to your questions/observations (all good ones I might add) is that somebody thought it looked good. Not very satisfying I know, but accurate.

[–] davidwile 11 years ago

Hey Jefbecco,

Yep, I suppose you are probably right. It has been a little more than a year since I wrote that original post, and I find my memory of the film is already fading a bit. I guess I will just have to watch it again and enjoy it again. This will, of course, give credence to your supposition they "did it" because someone thought it looked good. Oh well, they got me, and I really do not mind.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

[–] Jefbecco-1 11 years ago

Actually it's interesting to watch WWII movies made in the late fifties and sixties. You'll see characters wearing equipment incorrectly, out of uniform and so on. But if you look at photos and film from WWII you don't see that. I think the closest you might get is the marines and Army troops who were fighting in some of the island campaigns and perhaps the soldiers in Burma (Merrill's Marauders) oh and some of the U.S. troops in the North Africa campaign. Uniforms are ripped up,often the men aren't wearing helmets and so on. However as the war progressed the uniforms become more complete looking - even those being worn by troops who have been in battle for several days or weeks. The men just begin to come across as being more "squared away". I think that was a combination of our logistics improving and the training and emphasis on proper wear of uniform and equipment making itself felt - especially by 1944/45.

However it seems that the actual WWII generation and their children didn't mind Hollywood and television portraying U.S. military personal as being a bit more rakish in appearance. My grandfather flew bombers during WWII (B-17's & B-29's). He had the aviators cap that was crushed in the middle due to the headset. Very cool looking. But grandpa (1918-2013) told me that when not flying he would get in trouble wearing that hat. He had a nice properly formed hat and a garrison cap that he would wear when not flying his plane. But Hollywood would show the pilots wearing those hats all the time. Grandpa had a formal portrait taken of him in uniform with the hat worn at a jaunty angle. I an guarantee that when he walked out of the studio he was wearing his other hat and it was on his head as per uniform regulations. Reality and fiction.

Perhaps that might explain why the movie did what it did as well. That was how the vets saw themselves.

[–] Scout706 9 years ago

I believe it was called the "25 mission crush". Thanks for sharing that info. I always wondered about those hats at crazy angles.