Okay, so, I got to thinking the other day about the military and various movies and I was thinking, "Gosh, would they REALLY do that in real life?" I mean, I know, Hollywood doesn't always portray military people in the best light, but there are some things I'm just not sure WHAT the real procedure would be. So, with that in mind, I present these situation from various movies, to hear what others more knowledgeable than me think...
First one is Transformers (live action movie)
Okay, picture this, you're on an army base near enemy territory, suddenly a fighter jet shows up, heading towards your position. You send two planes out to intercept, but the pilot is ignoring all attempts at communication. You do a quick search and turns out the plane is apparently a US plane which got SHOT DOWN about six months ago in another part of the world.
Guy is STILL ignoring all attempts at communication.
So, in the film, they let the plane land, surround it with army guys and tell the pilot (actually a hologram) to come out or they will open fire.
Now, to me, I think they should have just blasted it out of the sky. The plane could have been loaded with explosives or god knows what else, and being that the pilot is refusing to communicate with other planes, AND the plane was shot down months ago (this was confirmed by some guy in the base), seems like letting it land would be too much of a risk.
On a somewhat sidenote, I happen to know that at military bases where they have test flights of fighter planes and whatnot, they are authorized to use DEADLY force on any unauthorized person who gets within so many feet of a plane (think it's like a couple hundred.) I figure if they don't mess around in a situation like that, then something like this would be a lot more serious.
But, hey, maybe I'm wrong.
And yes, I know, it's just a film, but I'm still curious if they would have let that happen in real life.
Situation number two:
Aliens vs Predator Requiem
Okay, here's the situation... you're part of the National Guard, you've gotten reports about an explosion at the local nuclear power planet, all sorts of crazy things are going down, hearing reports about riots or murders or something, no one's really sure what the details are. So, you hop in the tank, and, accompanied by about half a dozen soldiers, you guys drive on down main street. While inside the tank, you get a call from the town's sheriff, you start talking to him, trying to figure out what's going on. Suddenly you hear a bunch of yelling and gunfire over the radio. Your team seems to be under attack!
You hear a lot of screaming and bullets flying as you repeatedly call out for someone from the outside to report. You get no answer, and, suddenly, every thing's quiet.
Now, I know I don't measure up to the standards of bravery for any branch of the military, but to me, what you DON'T do in this situation, is OPEN the hatch to the tank, and pop your head out to see what's going on.
QuoteNow, to me, I think they should have just blasted it out of the sky. The plane could have been loaded with explosives or god knows what else, and being that the pilot is refusing to communicate with other planes, AND the plane was shot down months ago (this was confirmed by some guy in the base), seems like letting it land would be too much of a risk.
I know when I was in the Army, and we had to pull guard duty guarding an ammo point, we were issued live ammo and instructed in shoot to maim/shoot to kill scenarios. That was in the early 90s, and I'd imagine they're even more serious when it comes to planes, especially experimental ones.
As a formerly active Marine I'll give you mt answer, others may vary ...
Situation 1 - Blast it out of the sky.
Situation 2 - Tanks have sight windows and I've heard some newer tanks have CCTV so there is no need to be a Jack-in-the-Box.
There is a reason that in the military, they say "Keep your head down!"
I know they were wrong in the classic Tarantula, the military wouldn't come in on reports of a Giant Spider Attack. However if it was proven they would've dropped so much napalm.
Quote from: BTM on July 24, 2008, 03:39:58 PM
Okay, here's the situation... you're part of the Nation Guard, you've gotten reports about an explosion in the local nuclear power planet, all sorts of crazy things are going down, hearing reports about riots or murders or something, no one's really sure what the details are. So, you hop in the tank, and, accompanied by about half a dozen soldiers, you guys drive on down main street. While inside the tank, you get a call from the town's sheriff, you start talking to him, trying to figure out what's going on. Suddenly you hear a bunch of yelling and gunfire over the radio. Your team seems to be under attack!
I've never been in the military (but I did stay at Holiday Inn last night), but I find it impossible to believe that tanks would be deployed to check out an explosion or reports of rioting. This ain't Tienanmen Square. They also operate in groups, not alone. Assuming tanks are used, once they arrive at an area the infantry goes in first, with the tanks hanging back to provide covering fire if needed.
Quoteonce they arrive at an area the infantry goes in first, with the tanks hanging back to provide covering fire if needed.
Actually the tanks go in and take out whatever threats they can first (Tanks, Artillery, Bunkers, Infantry), the infantry then goes in and does a more thourogh cleanup, when possible that is. If the tanks are "hanging back", rrealize that they will be firing generally AT their own infantry once they're needed. Whenever possible, keep YOUR armor between THEIR armor and YOUR infantry.
I was just going by what I saw in some Iraq war documentary. They were assaulting some small group of buildings, and the infantry went in to clean out the area. If the infantry encountered a hardened position, they'd radio the tanks to take it out.
I read a book about the Russians in Chechnya - when they originally went into the capitol, Grozny, all the infantry were riding on top of the armored vehicles. Russian procedure called for them to be proceeding ahead of the tanks. Since they weren't, the Chechen's found it very easy to set up an ambush and pretty much obliterate the whole armored column, firing RPG's out of the windows of buildings. If the infantry had gone in first, they would have discovered the ambush and taken cover within the buildings, returning fire. At the same time the tanks could have provided fire as well, out of range of the ambush. Pretty major F-up on their part.
But like I say, I've never been in the military and don't know what the hell I'm taking about :teddyr:
Quote from: Jack on July 25, 2008, 07:12:28 AM
I've never been in the military (but I did stay at Holiday Inn last night), but I find it impossible to believe that tanks would be deployed to check out an explosion or reports of rioting. This ain't Tienanmen Square.
You know, that is a good point, maybe a tank is a bit much in the given situation. But, I suppose you could maybe say if they thought it was a terrorist attack and there were still more out there, and the military group was closer than say, the local FBI or ATF office.
Dunno..
The movie that comes to mind for me right away is the Clint Eastwood flick Heartbreak Ridge. I thought it was OK but the accuracy of the portrayal of the Marine Corps left a lot to be desired. I always thought it was Clint kind of living out a fantasy.
Hollywood, in its infinite wisdom, always takes liberties with what the military does or would do in the films they make. This goes for everthing from what clothing is worn to what equipment is used, probably because the people making the film think it looks better or is easier to film. I try to ignore this but there are times where it can actually ruin an otherwise good film.
Quote from: Dennis on July 26, 2008, 12:50:43 PM
Hollywood, in its infinite wisdom, always takes liberties with what the military does or would do in the films they make. This goes for everthing from what clothing is worn to what equipment is used, probably because the people making the film think it looks better or is easier to film. I try to ignore this but there are times where it can actually ruin an otherwise good film.
Actually after having a hissy-fit over the uniforms always being wrong even on film with well known, military advisers I found out that in movies it is technically illegal for non-military personal to wear a military uniform and by making the uniform incorrect it is legal. They can not ware a 100% correct uniform unless it's their own from their own service.
This is mostly done with metals/awards ... which is what caused me to snap. I forget the movie but they were wearing a "NDR" (National Defense Ribbon) ahead of a Silver Star. As you know the NDR is about as low as ribbons go, it's the thanks for joining ribbon, whereas the Silver Star requires a little more effort to get, being that it is one of the highest awards in the military. Most of the time I've noticed that use obsolete ribbons, other countries or made up ones. Or other awards from the wrong branch like marksmanship, diving, jumper wings etc. One movie I saw a Army Ranger wearing a Navy SEAL Trident (Granted if he was a Navy SEAL at one time and left the Navy and joined the Army he could legally wear it, but that would have required a back story, which there wasn't one.)
One of the few things I really nit-pick is military films.
Some are just so wrong it's ridiculous! In the movie Marine :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: They had the Marine wearing a Army Cover (hat for you non military types) I mean that's just extremely poor art direction.
I never pay much attention to the decorations on the uniforms, but I pay a lot of attention to the uniforms and ranks.
According to the site VAJoe, it is not illegal to wear the uniform correctly. http://www.vajoe.com/board/viewtopic.php?pid=5134
f) While portraying a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, an actor in a theatrical or motion-picture production may wear the uniform of that armed force if the portrayal does not tend to discredit that armed force.
According to the eHow.com site this is part of uniform law. http://www.ehow.com/how_2153619_know-military-uniform-laws.html
Quote from: I am Kirok! on July 26, 2008, 04:02:07 PM
f) While portraying a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, an actor in a theatrical or motion-picture production may wear the uniform of that armed force if the portrayal does not tend to discredit that armed force.
It is rare that Hollywood nowadays doesn't make a film that discredits the military in some way. The 1940's this isn't.
Anyway, I don't remember where I read that is was illegal, but now that I know it's not according to your information that just goes to show how poor movie art direction really is.
Some of the screw ups show an amazing lack of effort by the film company, in "Charlie Wilson's War" , a big budget film starring Tom Hanks, there is a series of scenes near the end of the film showing the Afghan rebels shooting down Soviet aircraft with Stinger missiles. The planes destroyed are an A-6 Intruder, then a F-4 Phantom, and finally a F-16 Fighting Falcon. I'm sure that what happened was the script said insert shot of exploding military aircraft here and the editor grabbed the first available clips that could be found. I believe the film makers just assumed that no one would notice or care. This comes at the end of an otherwise enjoyable film, and I have to say it spoiled the movie, at least for me.
QuoteI was just going by what I saw in some Iraq war documentary. They were assaulting some small group of buildings, and the infantry went in to clean out the area. If the infantry encountered a hardened position, they'd radio the tanks to take it out.
I can see that though, sounds like they're using their armor more like mobile artillery. I can see the traditional roles changing when going into a city and such.
QuoteI read a book about the Russians in Chechnya - when they originally went into the capitol, Grozny, all the infantry were riding on top of the armored vehicles. Russian procedure called for them to be proceeding ahead of the tanks. Since they weren't, the Chechen's found it very easy to set up an ambush and pretty much obliterate the whole armored column, firing RPG's out of the windows of buildings. If the infantry had gone in first, they would have discovered the ambush and taken cover within the buildings, returning fire. At the same time the tanks could have provided fire as well, out of range of the ambush. Pretty major F-up on their part.
When the goal of the conflict changes from "destroy everything in sight", traditional modes of engagement are worthless. Had they started knocking down the buildings straight off, it would have been much different and leading with the armor would have been much more successful.
When I was in, they were still training in scenarios that involved a battlefield more like Vietnam and less like urban warfare.