Tears of the Sun
- Thread starter longeyes
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, I'd say that goes back to Vietnam ranger squads (LRRPs) who carried that to confuse the enemy. VC's sometimes shot off a few rounds as a signal and they could use it to signal back. Or, being a covert squad, they could take down a single VC and the shots would have a greater chance of not alerting local VC to their presence since it sounded like one of their own. There were LRRP squads in Vietnam that were entirely outfitted with AK's (captured AKs of course).
brad cook
Yeah, but it doesn't really matter who you bring in. Anytime Bruckheimer is involved there is going to be some over-the-top crap and some blatant emotional manipulation. The only exception I've ever seen was Black Hawk Down, which only had a couple of Bruckheimer moments and, IMO was only saved by the fact that Ridley Scott was directing (not that everything HE touches is gold). Can you imagine what crap this movie would have been if say...Michael Bay was directing?
OMG, does anyone else see a pattern here? ALL of those movies are full of WAY over-the-top action and some of them are WILDLY unrealistic except for Black Hawk Down. Tears of the Sun wasn't AS bad as most of them either. But come on...Pearl Harbor, Gone In 60 Seconds, The Rock (this melodramatic pablum in the end made me want to puke), Con Air.. SHeesh...this list of movies with the exception of BHD makes me want to never see any movies this guy has worked on again. BTW, he was not, by far, the only guy working BHD. They had all kinds of guys on that set including D-Boys, Rangers and I believe they consulted with Durant and some of the guys that were originally there...so they saved that one (with Scott's help too I'm sure). I've seen the previews for Bad Boys II and that looks like the same garbage as the original one. Maybe at least the jokes will be funny. That's not one I'll see unless I'm with a group that rents it or something.
Edit: You wanna talk about quality military advisors, look at Capt. Dale Dye. Advisor for Band of Brothers, The Thin Red Line (whether you liked it as a movie or not those battle sequences were good), Saving Private Ryan, Casualties of War, Platoon. Now THAT's a resume.
brad cook
Keith
Member
A couple of things I caught:
F18's take off from carrier with no ordnance on wings. Arrive at battle loaded with stuff.
Captain arrives at final battle scene in helo, moments after F18's arrive. Fast helo's!
In one battle scene, the SEAL's stand up straight and proud and march at enemy position across open ground through mortar and machine gun fire, demonstrating what Pershing's American Expeditionary Force called "walking fire" - a battle tactic that was discarded after WWI when somebody realized that the enemy might have more bullets than you have soldiers.
These guys are crawling through mountains, yet every time they radio the carrier, the coms are clear as a bell... maybe they have some sort of satellite deal, but I didn't notice any dish being set up.
All the weak and cripples (who might slow them down) are loaded out at the first LZ. Yet, at the end of the movie the guy with the artificial leg is still along with them - the same guy who is shown as a major impediment when they first flee the mission.
And was that an AK47? I didn't notice one, but in one scene a SEAL is flashed on screen shooting what appears to be an M14? Not necessarily a mistake unless he has different rifles in different scenes.
This COULD have been a good movie if somebody would have rooted it in reality.
Keith
F18's take off from carrier with no ordnance on wings. Arrive at battle loaded with stuff.
Captain arrives at final battle scene in helo, moments after F18's arrive. Fast helo's!
In one battle scene, the SEAL's stand up straight and proud and march at enemy position across open ground through mortar and machine gun fire, demonstrating what Pershing's American Expeditionary Force called "walking fire" - a battle tactic that was discarded after WWI when somebody realized that the enemy might have more bullets than you have soldiers.
These guys are crawling through mountains, yet every time they radio the carrier, the coms are clear as a bell... maybe they have some sort of satellite deal, but I didn't notice any dish being set up.
All the weak and cripples (who might slow them down) are loaded out at the first LZ. Yet, at the end of the movie the guy with the artificial leg is still along with them - the same guy who is shown as a major impediment when they first flee the mission.
And was that an AK47? I didn't notice one, but in one scene a SEAL is flashed on screen shooting what appears to be an M14? Not necessarily a mistake unless he has different rifles in different scenes.
This COULD have been a good movie if somebody would have rooted it in reality.
Keith
Nightcrawler
Member
I've seen pictures of spec-ops guys in Afghanistan carrying AK-47s, too. It's the most common military rifle in the world.
There's a reason Knight's Armament, Robinson Armament, and even Special Weapons LLC are marketing rifles that fire the 7.62x39mm round and accept AK-47 magazines; there's a demand for it in the special forces world, apparently, to allow use of battlefield pickup magazines.
I don't know what everyone's complaining about. I liked the movie. Emotional? OF COURSE it was emotional. Anything with "Tears" in the title is going to have some emotional content, rated EC-10!
There were some points that weren't that great, of course. There was that one President's son talking about how his father was all for freedom and democracy, yet goes on about his royal lineage. Then there was the black Navy SEAL who refers to the Africans as "his people". To me, that's a stereotype. The black friends that I've had have about as much identification with Africans as I do with the Finns.
Cosmoline
Member
"Black Hawk Down" meets "Armageddon"
Not worth the price of admission.
Not worth the price of admission.
That's another good point. That really bothered me. It is like an American white guy going into a war in Europe and claiming that one side or the other are his people.
Most black Americans have no idea what tribe they were originally from. How did the the black Navy Seal know that he belonged to the "good" tribe and not the "evil" tribe? What a bunch of B.S.!
brookstexas
member
Tears of the Sun?
Tears of the Audience more like it. Tactics and military interaction were very Hollywood, remember Bruce also started the whole "Ceramic Glock" crap in Die Hard so I'm not suprised despite his being a "Republican".
Then the movie is so "PC", like when he asks the black team member for his input and he says "These are my people", yeah right! Wasted my money on that one!
BT
Tears of the Audience more like it. Tactics and military interaction were very Hollywood, remember Bruce also started the whole "Ceramic Glock" crap in Die Hard so I'm not suprised despite his being a "Republican".
Then the movie is so "PC", like when he asks the black team member for his input and he says "These are my people", yeah right! Wasted my money on that one!
BT
brookstexas
member
Another thing
Ok so the guy had an AK47, not that it hasn't EVER been something Spec OPs carried for "Certain" reasons like not leaving .223 rounds in folks they wanted dead but
1-How did this situation call for it???
2-It would have been in great shape from the armory, notice the one scene wher you cleary see the RUSTED buttplate and other parts?
BT
Ok so the guy had an AK47, not that it hasn't EVER been something Spec OPs carried for "Certain" reasons like not leaving .223 rounds in folks they wanted dead but
1-How did this situation call for it???
2-It would have been in great shape from the armory, notice the one scene wher you cleary see the RUSTED buttplate and other parts?
BT
George Hill
Member
Harry Humphries was the advisor? Yeah, I know who he is.
Then how the hell did it get so cheesy at the end?
I blame the Director. Apologies to Harry.
Then how the hell did it get so cheesy at the end?
I blame the Director. Apologies to Harry.
I'm with George on this one. I think the whole lack of reality is not Harry's doings, it's all on the director and what they want out of it.
I'm sure if Bruckheimer wanted a real world SEAL/Special Operations feel to it, Harry Humphries sure could give it to him.
My no 1 complaint from that movie was that not ONE of the SEALs was wearing body armor! Go back and watch the movie again and count how many of them would have died if they had been wearing some IBA with level 3-4 plates in em.
I think the total I can remember was one. The rest were hit in mid chest, stomach or back for the kill shots.
I can see no reason why anyone wouldn't wear body armor in any situation that could reasonably lead to a gunfight.
I think the total I can remember was one. The rest were hit in mid chest, stomach or back for the kill shots.
I can see no reason why anyone wouldn't wear body armor in any situation that could reasonably lead to a gunfight.
Nightcrawler
Member
Because it can be hard to swim in a 25 pound military armor vest, complete with ceramic plates. It can also slow you down when you're walking 30 miles through the jungle and hills.
I do believe that Navy SEALs, on many missions, forego wearing body armor (just as they don't wear helmets), to lighten their load so they can carry more of their equipment. Remember, you have a small team doing the job of an entire infantry battalion in many cases.
It's a tradeoff. The ceramic plates make it heavy, but without them, a vest is useless against rifle fire anyway.
This question would be best answered, of course, by someone who was actually in the SEAL teams, but that's my theory.
USMCsilver
Member
I rented it the day it came out and I want my money back!
IMHO, the movie sucked. Way too much melodramatic, non-realistic storyline with too little action and pertinant dialoge.
From the previews, it looked like the move would rock. When I sat down to watch it, I was like, "*** -- where's the action?"
More Hollyweird for ya -- lame plot with misrepresented trailers...
IMHO, the movie sucked. Way too much melodramatic, non-realistic storyline with too little action and pertinant dialoge.
From the previews, it looked like the move would rock. When I sat down to watch it, I was like, "*** -- where's the action?"
More Hollyweird for ya -- lame plot with misrepresented trailers...
Dorian,
I'm just in the infantry, but if I had the choice, I wouldn't wear body armor or a k-pot (kevlar helmet). (Unless getting transport into a MOUT environment.)
March a few miles with a full ruck, combat load, weapon, and armor, and see how you feel about it. Casualties from enemy fire MAY happen, but the extra weight and bulk WILL wear you down.
John
I'm just in the infantry, but if I had the choice, I wouldn't wear body armor or a k-pot (kevlar helmet). (Unless getting transport into a MOUT environment.)
March a few miles with a full ruck, combat load, weapon, and armor, and see how you feel about it. Casualties from enemy fire MAY happen, but the extra weight and bulk WILL wear you down.
John
OEF_VET
Member
JShirley, sorry buddy, but I gotta disagree with ya.
As a former grunt and FO, and a vet of Assghanistan and Kosovo, I wouldn't want to be without body armor nowadays. During Operation Anaconda, neither 10th Mtn. nor 101st Abn. lost anyone, and this is due in large part to IBA. Most of the injuries we did take were to the extremeties because the IBA w/ plates fully protected the torsos.
I'll be the first to admit that wearing the stuff sucks, but it is a lifesaver. We were first issued it in Kosovo, and my platoon had to climb 6 flights of stairs wearing full battle rattle every time we went to chow, the latrine, patrol, or guard duty. That's a lot of stair climbing wearing all that weight, but it's still nothing compared to a sucking chest wound caused by a mortar fragment.
Then, in Afghanistan, the Rakkasans were the only ones who had to wear it whereever we went on Kandahar AF. But again, that's a small price to pay for the protection if some AQ/Taliban had better aim and had actually hit the airfield with one of the rockets they shot at us.
I personally think our soldiers should train while wearing IBA, so they'll get used to wearing it, and that'll cut down on the whining when they get deployed and the IBA comes out of the duffle bags. One of the Army's favorite sayings has been "Train as you fight, fight as you train." Well, let's do it all time, including JRTC.
Frank
As a former grunt and FO, and a vet of Assghanistan and Kosovo, I wouldn't want to be without body armor nowadays. During Operation Anaconda, neither 10th Mtn. nor 101st Abn. lost anyone, and this is due in large part to IBA. Most of the injuries we did take were to the extremeties because the IBA w/ plates fully protected the torsos.
I'll be the first to admit that wearing the stuff sucks, but it is a lifesaver. We were first issued it in Kosovo, and my platoon had to climb 6 flights of stairs wearing full battle rattle every time we went to chow, the latrine, patrol, or guard duty. That's a lot of stair climbing wearing all that weight, but it's still nothing compared to a sucking chest wound caused by a mortar fragment.
Then, in Afghanistan, the Rakkasans were the only ones who had to wear it whereever we went on Kandahar AF. But again, that's a small price to pay for the protection if some AQ/Taliban had better aim and had actually hit the airfield with one of the rockets they shot at us.
I personally think our soldiers should train while wearing IBA, so they'll get used to wearing it, and that'll cut down on the whining when they get deployed and the IBA comes out of the duffle bags. One of the Army's favorite sayings has been "Train as you fight, fight as you train." Well, let's do it all time, including JRTC.
Frank
I know that in Mogadishu both the Rangers and the D-Boys would wear front plates but no plates on the back. Can't remember the reason for that but I think it just simply had to do with some theory that they just weren't going to receive much fire from the back. There were people who ended up getting shot right in the back while trying to rescue the downed Black Hawks.
brad cook
brad cook
Frank, that's my choice, and you're free to have your own opinion. As I said, if I spend most of my time in my vehicle, I would wear it. My company now has MOLLE gear, and we have mounted our mag pouches and other gear directly to our Interceptor vests. We wear them all the time.
John
John
Nightcrawler
Member
Remember too that SEALS do their best to go as light as possible. No huge rucksacks like the Rangers, no helmets, no flak jackets. They prefer to get in, kill the badguys ever-so-quietly, and get the hell out.
Remember, that often they get into an area by swimming. You can't swim with 200 pounds of gear hanging off of you.
Remember, that often they get into an area by swimming. You can't swim with 200 pounds of gear hanging off of you.
OEF_VET
Member
John, I didn't mean to insinuate that your opinion wasn't valid. My apologies if you took it that way. In fact, regarding the subject of Infantry combat vs. body armor, your opinion is one I feel is more valuable than most, as you're the man invloved. I'm always willing to listen to the opinion of a brother-in-arms. It's just, as much as IBA sucks (and boy, does it suck!!!), I just think it's worth it. Of course, those who haven't experienced it will never understand the high suck-factor of IBA like us.
Take it easy bro, and hey, thanks for your hard work everyday.
Frank
Take it easy bro, and hey, thanks for your hard work everyday.
Frank
George Hill
Member
I'm with John on this... Being one who humped many miles with helmet and full ruck I can say that I did much better with a light fanny pack and boonie hat. I could run farther and faster and honestly didn't feel like I was in any more danger considering the fact that high explosives and 30 caliber machine gun fire scoffs at kevlar anyways.
Been there done that. 31-C RTO(radio telephone operator) in an engineering company.
God knows that wearing that radio made me feel like i had a huge target on my back, and the extra 5, NOT 20, pounds of body armor would have been a blessing. But I got out before the IBA was standard issue.
Could NEVER figure out why we got helmets and no body armor.
Now I'm aspiring to be a police officer. I don't see the point of ever not wearing body armor.
And as I understand it, you can use the IBA instead of your ALICE or MOLLE.... So that takes the weight of the carrier vest out, which compensates a little bit.
- Status
