# USS Indianapolis: Men of Courage



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Watched this movie yesterday. I've always been interested in what happened to the _Indianapolis _after she delivered the atomic bombs to Tinian. Had high hopes for this movie. Nicolas Cage stars as the Captain. How could they screw this up? Wasn't a really bad movie, Cage, an actor I like, doesn't do well as the Captain. His acting seems forced. The special effects could have been a lot better. One thing that really got me right off the bat was the scene where the cruiser is in a battle with all guns firing, being attacked by Kamikaze fighters. The scene includes a shot of a 5" mount being used as an anti-aircraft gun. This was a twin mount gun turret and they had the guns going off just as the real AA guns would. A 5" mount such as the one in the movie simply can't fire as they show it firing. I found that a bit disturbing and the special effects never got any better.

But, I did watch the whole thing. Not the best movie, not the worst.

Rich


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

Rich said:


> Watched this movie yesterday. I've always been interested in what happened to the _Indianapolis _after she delivered the atomic bombs to Tinian. Had high hopes for this movie. Nicolas Cage stars as the Captain. How could they screw this up? Wasn't a really bad movie, Cage, an actor I like, doesn't do well as the Captain. His acting seems forced. The special effects could have been a lot better. One thing that really got me right off the bat was the scene where the cruiser is in a battle with all guns firing, being attacked by Kamikaze fighters. The scene includes a shot of a 5" mount being used as an anti-aircraft gun. This was a twin mount gun turret and they had the guns going off just as the real AA guns would. A 5" mount such as the one in the movie simply can't fire as they show it firing. I found that a bit disturbing and the special effects never got any better.
> 
> But, I did watch the whole thing. Not the best movie, not the worst.
> 
> Rich


Lots of movies like that.
The hero in the show is shooting the bad guys with just one shot each and the bad guys ( sometimes several at once ) have automatic weapons spraying bullets every where and the hero does not even get hit most of the time.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

jimmie57 said:


> Lots of movies like that.
> The hero in the show is shooting the bad guys with just one shot each and the bad guys ( sometimes several at once ) *have automatic weapons spraying bullets every where and the hero does not even get hit most of the time.*


I get that. Kinda boggles the mind. You really ought to see the movie and catch that 5" gun mount firing. I had to go back and watch that scene a couple times, could not believe they let something like that happen.

Rich


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

That's what happens when movie producers hire some clueless, long-retired dishonorably-discharged ex-Army PFC to be the military advisor on technical issues for a film about the navy. Could be...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Nick said:


> That's what happens when movie producers hire some clueless, long-retired dishonorably-discharged ex-Army PFC to be the military advisor on technical issues for a film about the navy. Could be...


Who is that? I didn't watch the credits.

Rich


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

Rich said:


> Watched this movie yesterday. I've always been interested in what happened to the _Indianapolis _after she delivered the atomic bombs to Tinian. Had high hopes for this movie. Nicolas Cage stars as the Captain. How could they screw this up? Wasn't a really bad movie, Cage, an actor I like, doesn't do well as the Captain. His acting seems forced. The special effects could have been a lot better. One thing that really got me right off the bat was the scene where the cruiser is in a battle with all guns firing, being attacked by Kamikaze fighters. The scene includes a shot of a 5" mount being used as an anti-aircraft gun. This was a twin mount gun turret and they had the guns going off just as the real AA guns would. A 5" mount such as the one in the movie simply can't fire as they show it firing. I found that a bit disturbing and the special effects never got any better.
> 
> But, I did watch the whole thing. Not the best movie, not the worst.
> 
> Rich


Rich -- I haven't seen the movie, but did it cover the Courts Martial of the Captain? Why he was rail-roaded like he was still hasn't been explained.

Also, the Indianapolis had eight (8) 5" guns. Those were the 5"/25 AA gun and had a fair rate of fire. Again, I don't know what the movie depicted, but those 5" guns could fire about 15-20 rounds per minute.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

trh said:


> Rich -- I haven't seen the movie, but did it cover the Courts Martial of the Captain? Why he was rail-roaded like he was still hasn't been explained.
> 
> Also, the Indianapolis had eight (8) 5" guns. Those were the 5"/25 AA gun and had a fair rate of fire. Again, I don't know what the movie depicted, but those 5" guns could fire about 15-20 rounds per minute.


Yes, the court martial was covered. The movie did not explain why he was found guilty. The point that he was the only captain of a ship that had been sunk in WWII to be court martialed because of the loss of his ship. I don't know if that is true.

Those 5" gun mounts looked just like the gun mounts aboard our destroyer. Can you dig up a picture of the AA 5" gun mounts? I've never seen a 5" mount fire like that. I know the mounts on our ship couldn't fire that fast, the mounts in the movie were firing as fast as what looked like 40mm AA guns adjacent to the 5" mounts.

Rich


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

The Best -Tale of the story is -Told During the Movie Jaws -How no one even knew they were missing because the 'Mission" was so secret - That's the main reason the men were in the water so long.

The Captain in Jaws says "he was never so scared until help arrived waiting to be picked up" that it would get him too late

USS Indianapolis CA-35


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Mmm. The gun mounts on the destroyer were 5" 38 mounts. They look exactly like the mounts on the movie's _Indianapolis_. I do see the rate of fire is 12-15 rounds a minute. Not sure what the ROF for a 40mm mount is but I'll find out. I cannot see any way that a 5" mount could keep up with a 40mm AA gun.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Looks like the ROF for a 40mm gun is 120 R/M. The 5" gun in the movie sure looked like it was keeping up with the 40mm gun. Which, I think, is not possible.

Rich


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

Rich said:


> Yes, the court martial was covered. The movie did not explain why he was found guilty. The point that he was the only captain of a ship that had been sunk in WWII to be court martialed because of the loss of his ship. I don't know if that is true.
> 
> Those 5" gun mounts looked just like the gun mounts aboard our destroyer. Can you dig up a picture of the AA 5" gun mounts? I've never seen a 5" mount fire like that. I know the mounts on our ship couldn't fire that fast, the mounts in the movie were firing as fast as what looked like 40mm AA guns adjacent to the 5" mounts.
> 
> Rich


Again, I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know what kind of liberties they took in making the movie. 
This Wikipedia page has a few pictures: 5"/25 caliber gun - Wikipedia
Those guns don't look much like the 5"/38 (same type that was also on my first ship). I do know they did some filming on the USS Alabama (BB-60) in Mobile AL (museum ship). The Alabama had (has) 5"/38 guns.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

WestDC said:


> The Best -Tale of the story is -Told During the Movie Jaws -How no one even knew they were missing because the 'Mission" was so secret - That's the main reason the men were in the water so long.
> 
> The Captain in Jaws says "he was never so scared until help arrived waiting to be picked up" that it would get him too late
> 
> USS Indianapolis CA-35


In your link on the USS Indianapolis, it says it wasn't because of the secret mission they were on that they were missed, but the requirements at the time didn't require the combat ships to report their movements. Plus even though a radioman from the ship says they got an SOS out, the Navy says they never received it. But US Intel did pick up an intercept from the Japanese sub saying they had sunk a US battleship in a location that matched the track the ship was on. But they never took action on it.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

I fou


Rich said:


> Looks like the ROF for a 40mm gun is 120 R/M. The 5" gun in the movie sure looked like it was keeping up with the 40mm gun. Which, I think, is not possible.
> 
> Rich


I found this on Wikipedia:
On 15 February 1942 while escorting a convoy near Timor, USS Houston (CA-30) was attacked by nine Kawanishi H6K Type 97 ("Mavis") four-engine flying boats and thirty-six Mitsubishi Ki-21 Type 97 ("Sally") twin-engine bombers. Houston claimed to have shot down seven of these aircraft with her 5"/25 (12.7 cm) guns, *firing a total of 930 rounds during the 45 minute action*.

That would be about 20 rounds per minute.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

jimmie57 said:


> I fou
> 
> I found this on Wikipedia:
> On 15 February 1942 while escorting a convoy near Timor, USS Houston (CA-30) was attacked by nine Kawanishi H6K Type 97 ("Mavis") four-engine flying boats and thirty-six Mitsubishi Ki-21 Type 97 ("Sally") twin-engine bombers. Houston claimed to have shot down seven of these aircraft with her 5"/25 (12.7 cm) guns, *firing a total of 930 rounds during the 45 minute action*.
> ...


Yes, the Navy's web site says they could fire 15-20 rounds per minute, but I think the movie might have shown a different gun mount since the shipped they used to do some filming had the 5"/38


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

trh said:


> Again, I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know what kind of liberties they took in making the movie. 5"
> This Wikipedia page has a few pictures: 5"/25 caliber gun - Wikipedia
> Those guns don't look much like the 5"/38 (same type that was also on my first ship). I do know they did some filming on the USS Alabama (BB-60) in Mobile AL (museum ship). The Alabama had (has) 5"/38 guns.


One big difference between a 5" 38 and a 5" 25. The 25 has a fixed "cartridge" and the 38 uses a projectile and a powder bag, each loaded by hand. Had to make loading a bit quicker on the 25. Still couldn't fire as fast as a 40mm mount.

You really have to see the movie to appreciate what I wrote. It only happens once in the movie and it's at the very beginning. That 5" mount is firing, bam-bam-bam-bam-bam with each barrel depressing after firing just as a 40mm mount would. The 5" 38s just didn't work like that. The fired, bam...bam...bam...bam...

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

jimmie57 said:


> I fou
> 
> I found this on Wikipedia:
> On 15 February 1942 while escorting a convoy near Timor, USS Houston (CA-30) was attacked by nine Kawanishi H6K Type 97 ("Mavis") four-engine flying boats and thirty-six Mitsubishi Ki-21 Type 97 ("Sally") twin-engine bombers. Houston claimed to have shot down seven of these aircraft with her 5"/25 (12.7 cm) guns, *firing a total of 930 rounds during the 45 minute action*.
> ...


Different gun. The one in the movie was a dual gun mount, just like the mounts on the Sumner class destroyers. Check this out: USS Lowry DD-770 Photos.

Rich


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

Rich said:


> One big difference between a 5" 38 and a 5" 25. The 25 has a fixed "cartridge" and the 38 uses a projectile and a powder bag, each loaded by hand. Had to make loading a bit quicker on the 25. Still couldn't fire as fast as a 40mm mount.
> 
> You really have to see the movie to appreciate what I wrote. It only happens once in the movie and it's at the very beginning. That 5" mount is firing, bam-bam-bam-bam-bam with each barrel depressing after firing just as a 40mm mount would. The 5" 38s just didn't work like that. The fired, bam...bam...bam...bam...
> 
> Rich


We have the movie on our Plex server; I just haven't watched it yet.

But since the Indianapolis didn't have 5"/38s, we can't compare the two firing rates. I'm sure from your description it was a combination of CGI and using the 5"/38 guns onboard the Alabama (BB-60) where part of the movie was filmed.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

trh said:


> We have the movie on our Plex server; I just haven't watched it yet.
> 
> But since the Indianapolis didn't have 5"/38s, we can't compare the two firing rates. I'm sure from your description it was a combination of CGI and using the 5"/38 guns onboard the Alabama (BB-60) where part of the movie was filmed.


Had to be CGI. You simply cannot get a 5" 38 to do what it was doing in the movie. I have to admit I spent some time looking for other mistakes during the movie. I'd be interested in your take on Cage and the part he played in the movie. I enjoy his movies as a rule. Did not enjoy this performance.

Rich


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

Rich said:


> Had to be CGI. You simply cannot get a 5" 38 to do what it was doing in the movie. I have to admit I spent some time looking for other mistakes during the movie. I'd be interested in your take on Cage and the part he played in the movie. I enjoy his movies as a rule. Did not enjoy this performance.
> 
> Rich


Yes, it had to be CGI. 
The Indianapolis is at the bottom of the Pacific. 
And they didn't take the USS Alabama out into the Gulf of Mexico and shoot rounds through their guns.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

Well, I finally got to watch USS Indianapolis on a flight home. I am glad I only spent the equivalent of $0.94 for this DVD. Probably the worst movie I've watched in years. Acting, script and CGI were deplorable. I might even put the DVD in the recycle bin. A fantastic WWII story that should have been a great movie.

But on the same flight, I also watch Hacksaw Ridge. Another WWII-based story and this time the movie was great. I had heard some good things about the movie, but I was hesitant to watch it as the Director was Mel Gibson. Highly recommend this movie.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Nick said:


> That's what happens when movie producers hire some clueless, long-retired dishonorably-discharged ex-Army PFC to be the military advisor on technical issues for a film about the navy. Could be...





Rich said:


> Who is that? I didn't watch the credits.
> 
> Rich


Michael Dickerson is listed in the credits as Naval Consultant.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

trh said:


> Well, I finally got to watch USS Indianapolis on a flight home. I am glad I only spent the equivalent of $0.94 for this DVD. Probably the worst movie I've watched in years. Acting, script and CGI were deplorable. I might even put the DVD in the recycle bin. A fantastic WWII story that should have been a great movie.
> 
> But on the same flight, I also watch Hacksaw Ridge. Another WWII-based story and this time the movie was great. I had heard some good things about the movie, but I was hesitant to watch it as the Director was Mel Gibson. Highly recommend this movie.


But did you see the 5" gun mount firing at the beginning of the movie?

In retrospect, I'll agree the movie wasn't very good. Might be Cage's worst movie. I look forward to _Hacksaw Ridge_.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> Michael Dickerson is listed in the credits as Naval Consultant.


A Google search of "michael dickerson" yields a pro basketball player. Is that him?

Rich


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

Rich said:


> But did you see the 5" gun mount firing at the beginning of the movie?
> 
> In retrospect, I'll agree the movie wasn't very good. Might be Cage's worst movie. I look forward to _Hacksaw Ridge_.
> 
> Rich


The 5" gun in the movie wasn't the type on the Indianapolis. And while the aerial view of the ship made it look like the 5" gun had a fairly rapid rate of fire, the air bursts of the rounds near the Japanese planes looked pretty consistent with a 5" AA gun.


----------

