"HURT LOCKER"

[Drusagas]

Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor

Well reviewed by whom? NOT Soldiers.

1. The cowboy BULLSHIT that Hollywood loves to glorify. That crap would have gotten him fired or killed. From him skipping the robot to detect/defuse - to the "Let's slit up! you go left, you go right I'll go up the center - oh shit one of my guys got captured!" Moronic tactics...

3. The stupid scenarios through out. SAS surrendering to US forces? Then acting like they don't know what the hell they're doing when the enemy shoots at them? Not treating casualties or evacuating the dead? The US forces with fully functional vehicle just hanging out in the kill zone for hours despite the ability to easily exfil? The list goes on...

7. The WAR CRIME that the COLONEL winked and smiled about ordering the death of a detainee? WTF!!!



Eat your popcorn - enjoy your coke - but don't tell me this was a good movie.

Those were the ones that got me the most. Rented the movie cause of the reviews, hadn't heard anyone say anything bad about it.....

#1 on Warrior-Mentor's post, for me stood out the most, had to check myself from yelling at the screen.

[IrishYanksFan]

Originally Posted by Abu-Shakra

Alright, I'll give him that. I still think his movies suck though.

If you ignore the ridiculousness of half of Marine Force Recon committing a mutiny for a million bucks, The Rock was pretty decent.

[IrishYanksFan]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

One question I am wondering about regarding realism, in the movie Black Hawk Down, when the Delta Force guy is getting some food and he gets confronted by Ranger Captain Steele, who points out that his weapon is not on Safe: "Now Delta or no Delta, that's a hot weapon. You know better than that. Your safety should be on at all times."

To which the Delta guy just says, "Well this is my safety Sir" and squeezes an imaginary trigger in the air, then walks away. Was that just Hollywood or were Delta soldiers really like that?

One reason I ask is because I read in Michael Durant's In the Company of Heroes, he says that the Delta soldiers were very cocky.

Yes, the movie seemed to highlight kind of the friction between the young, less experienced, super structured and disciplined Rangers and the older, more experienced and relaxed Delta commandos.

Although the Rangers are a SOF unit and are more elite than them, in many ways their overall demeanor and attitude resembles more USMC infantry than say, SF or the SEALs. Whether Ridley Scott intended to portray that or not I think the movie did a good job showing that.

One thing I didn't like was how the movie made no mention of the DEVGRU and AF Special Tactics operators that were part of Task Force Ranger.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by IrishYanksFan

Although the Rangers are a SOF unit and are more elite than them, in many ways their overall demeanor and attitude resembles more USMC infantry than say, SF or the SEALs.

What sources did you use to form this opinion?

[IrishYanksFan]

Originally Posted by Razor

What sources did you use to form this opinion?

A QP that I know (not someone on this site) told me this. He basically said that the Ranger Regiment is an elite light infantry unit that does missions for SOCOM, but given their role, and the fact that they tend to be younger and less experienced than say, QPs or SEALs, their general attitude and demeanor (when it comes to things like haircuts) and they way their junior enlisted are treated by the NCOs and officers resembles more USMC infantry than other SOF units. He didn't say that Rangers were equivalent to Marine infantry, we know that's not true, but that their demeanor and attitudes tend to be similar.

In case you thought I meant to say that the 75th was more elite than SF and the SEAL teams, I didn't mean that. I meant to say that the 75th was more elite than USMC infantry. Poor choice of wording I suppose.

I haven't been in the service, I'm just reiterating what a QP told me and what I've heard from other sources, and this seems to be the general consensus.

If I'm off-target please correct me.

Originally Posted by IrishYanksFan

Yes, the movie seemed to highlight kind of the friction between the young, less experienced, super structured and disciplined Rangers and the older, more experienced and relaxed Delta commandos.

Although the Rangers are a SOF unit and are more elite than them, in many ways their overall demeanor and attitude resembles more USMC infantry than say, SF or the SEALs. Whether Ridley Scott intended to portray that or not I think the movie did a good job showing that.

One thing I didn't like was how the movie made no mention of the DEVGRU and AF Special Tactics operators that were part of Task Force Ranger.

Don't mean to put you back on your heels, but the movie was shown to the members of Task Force Ranger prior to general release. Those in attendance felt it was a fairly accurate depiction of actual events.

While Rangers tended to joke and play hoop, all wished they could roll with the D boys. The D-boys by comparision, played chess, shot and wrote letters home. It was very clear in the movie the age difference, skill and maturity level of the "other" operators.

Actions on the objective were also accurately portrayed. D-boy, "A sitting target is easier to hit, let's keep moving".

If a comparsion could be made in such a way, that the every day average American to use to understand the difference in the Rangers, SF or CAG. I would attempt the following:


Ranger, equal to = A highly motivated, strong, High School football player, that without his coach constently on his ass to think and act would fail miserably.

SF/CAG: Older more mature football player that would show up for practice, study the playbook, conduct training drills and write a 20 page report for the head coach to review listing leasons learned, sort comings, needed equuipment and fundamentals that could be considered. You would find the majority of these players in college or on the New Orleans Saints Team, winning games.

Rangers training is equal to graduating HS.

Special Forces is equal to getting a post docorate degree in foreign policy.

WD

p.s., Team Sargeant - check my fire. If I'm wrong, I'll rewrite the first 3 chapter of "War in Peace" by hand, in Russian.

p.s.s., The SEALs are two rungs under the Marines. The Marines are predictable.

[craigepo]

"Ranger, equal to = A highly motivated, strong, High School football player, that without his coach constently on his ass to think and act would fail miserably"

I beg your pardon?

Originally Posted by craigepo

"Ranger, equal to = A highly motivated, strong, High School football player, that without his coach constently on his ass to think and act would fail miserably"

I beg your pardon?

It was a comparision. I just remember from my experience in Bat, that if they gave us a five minute break, we'd forget everything.

[craigepo]

WD--That's why part of your uniform was pen, paper, Ranger Handbook.

Also why you had everything you owned dummy corded. That way, when you forgot stuff, you drug it through the woods behind you.(Now I'm laughing out loud remembering watching guys drag their canteens on dummy cords behind them patrolling because they were droning so bad).(Also laughing because I just remembered our C.O. telling his RTO that he had an 11Bravo button on his ass---when his ass hit the ground, he instantly went to sleep).

IrishYanksFan---Just so no former Battboys get on here and lose their minds, I would suggest looking at the history of Operation Just Cause to determine some of the differences/distinctions between some of the units in special operations command, as many of the relevant units were involved in that operation. Pay particular attention to the different targets selected for the different units(i.e. the Ranger Regiment initially attacked airfields, etc).

Originally Posted by craigepo

WD--That's why part of your uniform was pen, paper, Ranger Handbook.

Also why you had everything you owned dummy corded. That way, when you forgot stuff, you drug it through the woods behind you.(Now I'm laughing out loud remembering watching guys drag their canteens on dummy cords behind them patrolling because they were droning so bad).(Also laughing because I just remembered our C.O. telling his RTO that he had an 11Bravo button on his ass---when his ass hit the ground, he instantly went to sleep).

IrishYanksFan---Just so no former Battboys get on here and lose their minds, I would suggest looking at the history of Operation Just Cause to determine some of the differences/distinctions between some of the units in special operations command, as many of the relevant units were involved in that operation. Pay particular attention to the different targets selected for the different units(i.e. the Ranger Regiment initially attacked airfields, etc).

Too funny. LOL, I remember seeing one guy try to put a quarter in a tree thinking it was a phone booth. To make it even more hilarious, the guy was using an imaginary quarter.

[lksteve]

Originally Posted by wet dog

Too funny. LOL, I remember seeing one guy try to put a quarter in a tree thinking it was a phone booth. To make it even more hilarious, the guy was using an imaginary quarter.

Pine cones can substitute for quarters...

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

One part I read the film didn't show was that the Somalis would go running across the street holding a child in one arm while firing with the other.

That certainly says something about the moral fiber of the enemy, now doesn't?

[The Reaper]

I do not know how this thread devolved to a "this is what my cousin's friend's father-in-law said" versus the "oh yeah, well in the movie...." contest, but I find it less than helpful.

Frankly, I don't care how you think the movie, BHD depicted the CAG personnel, or the 160th, or the Rangers, or the Somalis.

This obsession is unseemly. Good men and bad are dead. I have several friends who were there. Unless there is a teaching point, they don't bring it up, and out of respect, neither do I. If you weren't there, you know more than you need to about the battle.

TR

[Utah Bob]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

I do not know how this thread devolved to a "this is what my cousin's friend's father-in-law said" versus the "oh yeah, well in the movie...." contest, but I find it less than helpful.

Frankly, I don't care how you think the movie depicted the CAG personnel, or the 160th, or the Rangers, or the Somalis.

This obsession is unseemly. Good men and bad are dead. I have several friends who were there. Unless there is a teaching point, they don't bring it up, and out of respect, neither do I. If you weren't there, you know more than you need to about the battle.

TR

Exactly.

Now, back to this stinker of a movie that will probably win Oscars for it's stunningly realistic portrayal of men at war..yada yada yada

[PSM]

I caught this this morning. His effort seems sincere. I know several screen writers who say that what's on the screen is not what was in their script.

Video: Mark Boal

I have not seen the movie.

Pat