We were soldiers

[Forty-six & Two]

Damn. Just watched it... must say even though I would probaly crap my pants put down in the middle of a war... well maybe. I dont know. Its hard to say. If I had the training I might just survive for an hour or two. Maybe a day. Heh. Damn good movie anyway. War movies are just great.

But anyway, how do you think you would handle a real combat situation? Not a SEAL mission with heavy planning and lots of intell... but a true war like in the WWs or Vietnam. Dirty, dust in your eyes, bullets screeching all about, men dropping and bombs going off. Also if any of you have been in combat, how did you handle it?

Personally I havnt even handled a real weapon more than once at a shooting range. First I tried a rifle and than a gun. Long time ago cant really remember it. I havnt even tried paint ball.. gota try that soon though. Plan a trip with some friends and go at it.

[airsoft guy]

Most people's survival instincts and training would probablt take over when the shit got thick, probably sit there and pray a lot (there is no such thing as an Athiest in a combat zone) and be real scared, but at least I'm scared, that tells me I'm alive. Of course I've never been there so I don't know what I'll do, hopefully kill those out to kill me.

Isn't a rifle a gun? I already know how to handle firearms safely and how to make most of them go boom, and I'm a pretty good shooter.

[Forty-six & Two]

Isn't a rifle a gun? I already know how to handle firearms safely and how to make most of them go boom, and I'm a pretty good shooter.

Yea.. probaly. Anyway. A rifle and a pistol. Then... :shock:

[Killa-Killa]

Is unable to respond right now, and is in Iraq due to the recently reinstated draft...

(the first paragraph of airsoft guys post)
(points out that his gun is an airsoft, laughs and gets shot)

[Forty-six & Two]

Is unable to respond right now, and is in Iraq due to the recently reinstated draft...

(the first paragraph of airsoft guys post)
(points out that his gun is an airsoft, laughs and gets shot)

That doesnt make sense man...

[Hammer]

Isn't a rifle a gun? I already know how to handle firearms safely and how to make most of them go boom, and I'm a pretty good shooter.

It's not a gun, It's a WEAPON.

That doesnt make sense man...

KillaKilla never makes sense.

But anyway, how do you think you would handle a real combat situation?

I'd handle pretty good now, but when I was first in one I was scared shitless. After a few more engagements I became a little more hardened and it didn't seem to bother me as much. Anybody who tells you they'd be bustin' caps in Ivan's ass left and right without being afraid is full of shit, when the fecal matter hits the osculating blades all that "I'm indestructible" stuff goes right out the window.

[airsoft guy]

Isn't a rifle a gun? I already know how to handle firearms safely and how to make most of them go boom, and I'm a pretty good shooter.

It's not a gun, It's a WEAPON.

That's what they told you to say, out here in the real world people don't like it when you call a firearm a weapon, of course I don't because it's just more PC bullshit that I don't feel like dealing with, I usually call it a firearm or what it is, like rifle or shotgun and such.

I love talking to those gung-ho types, they're so fun, I'll be polite and nod my head because I know they'll be in the foxhole with me crying too after the DI throws some firecrackers our way. I've also noticed that these types of people have never fired off any type of firearm, maybe a BB gun or a paintball gun but that's about it. Like my good freind, he fancies himself as somekind of boxer/wrestler thing, thinks he'll make money off it. He did some trap shooting and lorded it over me, he bragged that his first day out he got 5 out of 25 shots, that's good for a beginner I guess, my first day out I got 9 out of 25 and then 16 out of 25 in my second round, he was doing it for a few months and said he got like 15 out of 25 as his best. Fancied himself as a pretty good shot, but then again who isn't a good shot with a shotgun? Even blind guys can use 'em.

[OnTheBounce]

I haven't seen the film in question, but there are some things I'd like to throw out that generally regard war films. (This is an area of special interest to me, and the subject of my honors thesis.)

War movies...

• ... -- even when they are based on fact -- are still fiction. It is pointless to try and learn about something by reading fiction.
• ...are inherently biased by their creators. Some films show you sanitized violence, others exagerate violence, etc. They are not actual representations of combat, so look at what you see w/a very critical eye.
• ...show time that is artificially compressed. As Ernest Hemingway said, "Modern war is 99% pure boredom, and 1% pure terror." The waiting is the hardest part, once you're in action it's not as bad as having your mind spinning its wheels dealing w/myriads of possible outcomes. This is why most soldiers succumb to shell shock/battle fatigue/PTSD during periods of inactivity, not during an actual engagement.
• ...largely ignore the rear echelon. Action is almost always centered on what's going on at the front. This gives a very, very badly skewed picture of what war is like. Most modern armies are 10% "tooth" (combat arms) and 90% "tail" (rear echelon/support troops). For the average soldier war isn't really much more than working long hours making sure his/her job gets done so that a very small number of people whom he rarely or never sees get what they need while they get their balls blown off/blow other people's balls off. In fact, many soldiers are too far away from the actual fighting to even hear it. (Yes, there are exceptions to this, such as M*A*S*H (Dir. Robert Altman, 1970) but these are exceptions, not the rule.) That's not to say that these people ("REMFs" as they're often called) don't suffer under a load of hardship and privation, just that their lot isn't what the popular conception of would have you believe.
• War films almost always misrepresent the level of determination and aggression that soldiers display. This is a controversial topic that has a long history, but it merits mention.
• ...tend to show each and every event that the creator(s) deem relevant. This is problematic when trying to convey "what it's really like". For instance, in the opening sequences of Saving Private Ryan you see the Rangers storming the beach, and most of what you see is based on actual events, such as the scene in which a landing craft gate goes down and 12 Rangers get hosed by a German MG nest. However, when you take the sensory overload-inducing "big picture" into account you get a distorted view. A view that no one person would have experienced that day. This is not to mention the fact that a lot of the troops on 6 JUN 44 got ashore w/little of no trouble.

I could go on, but this post is already long enough. For those interested in war films from a scholarly perspective, I recommend Celluloid Wars: A Guide to Film and the American Experience of War by Frank J. Wetta and Stephen J. Curley. This is a listing, both chronological and by subject of all war films made in the US up to 1992. It is published by Greenwood Books. This book ranks war films not in terms of quality, but rather in relevance to a film historian. (Rambo II gets 5 stars, since it broke the Viet Nam taboo, for instance.)

Cheers,

OTB

[Killzig]

This is my rifle this is my gun
one is for shooting
the other's for fun...

didn't you people watch all the child's play movies?

[Ruben Rooben Reuben]

If movies were accurate, most of the soldiers in war movies would be firing into the air, if at all. I think I read that only 35% of soldiers will actually fire their weapon at another person, regardless of the situation.

If movies were accurate, Angelina Jolie would make a lousy tomb raider as she would be too busy getting coked up in Kosovo.

[Grey Fil]

Thank you OTB for a very good post.

[OnTheBounce]

I think I read that only 35% of soldiers will actually fire their weapon at another person, regardless of the situation.

I barely touched on this issue in my first post, but since you've hit on it I'll expound a bit.

In 1947 S.L.A. "SLAM" Marshall released a book called Men Against Fire: The Problem of Battle Command. It was shocking to the people who read it, because in this book he alleged that only about 20% of US troops actively used their weapons against the enemy. This figure was supposedly based on a series of after action reviews that he conducted. There were exceptions to this rule, but rather than re-print the book, let's just say that the "big picture" was that soldiers weren't as aggressive as they should be, and he pointed to a number of tactical defeats the US suffered in WWII due to this lack of aggression, which he attributed mainly to unrealistic training, and also the basically Christian morality of even the most secular soldier.

It later came to light the SLAM never conducted those interviews, but his findings have been largely sustained. By the outbreak of the Korean War the firing rates were up to ca. 40%, and in Viet Nam the typical US company commander could coax out about 90% from his troops. This was largely the result of changes in training -- yes, Hammer, "Battle Focus Training" and some programs before it -- as well as in the table of organization and equipment.

This, like I said, is a topic of great controversy, and also of great depth that can barely have its surface scratched in this format. I encourage those of you w/an interest in this subject to do some digging. While the results don't cast convenient black and white shadows, you will very likely be very surprised at what you find out.

GF: Thanks for the boost, and you're welcome.

Cheers,

OTB

[Jack_Deth]

Yea, I enjoyed that movie a lot.

Don't think I could handle the war zone. I'd rather be in the rear with the gear.

[Garf]

In older battles most soldiers didn't fire their weapons like that. Infact a lot of soldiers in a war claim they've yet to see the enemy even after a day of fighting. WWII had a lot of this, though as time moved on I think by Vietnam it changed a lot and most men did fire their weapons.

Play a game of paintball and you'll see what I mean. A lot of the time you have no idea where shots are coming from and it takes you a bit to find it. Keep in mind this is paintball where the projectiles can be seen in the air and in the direction they're coming from.

War is a lot different then in the movies, hehe. Movies need it to be more exciting. But of course.. we all know this.

I'll tell you though, my most hated war movie of all time would have to be Wind Talkers. Awful awful movie.

[airsoft guy]

You should specify what kind of paintball you need to play, in order to get more of a feeling for war (although it still dosn't compare) you need to play woodsball (kickassball) speedball (doucheball) should be avoided at all costs unless you enjoy looking like an moron. It's quite conusing where the people are shooting from, especially if it's heavy brush.

[OnTheBounce]

I'll tell you though, my most hated war movie of all time would have to be Wind Talkers. Awful awful movie.

I haven't seen it, so I have to ask: Awful for what reasons?

(Could it possibly be worse than Battle of the Bulge of '65? Robert Shaw, Telly Savalas and Henry Fonda are all going to hell for that piece of shit...)

OTB

[LlamaGod]

Yeah, the whole 'action star war' is just a Hollywood after-effect I guess.

Sort of like how everyone thinks vikings all wore horned helmets.

[Megatron]

A view that no one person would have experienced that day. This is not to mention the fact that a lot of the troops on 6 JUN 44 got ashore w/little of no trouble. [/list]

Cheers,

OTB

I think most of the beaches only had a few hundred casualties, but the american beaches had the highest number of casualties. But I agree, saving private ryan seemed to stretch this out, as if the guy ran up and down the beach a few times. The actual bit of land they had to cross was stretched out in the movie, so I think yea most of it was for shock value? Not that I know much history dawg.

Didn't they try and make soldiers more aggressive in vietnam by giving them drugs or is this just a myth?

[airsoft guy]

What are you getting at there, huh? All Vikings wore horned helmets, all indians wear feathered headdresses, people from Morroco all wear fezes and all cab drivers wear turbans and so on. These are the facts man.

[Megatron]

why do they wear turbans anyway?