I Just Saw "Blackhawk Down"!

Commissar D, the Evil · Sun Dec 08, 2002 11:11 am

Okay, so I'm a year or two behind the rest of the world. Heck, cable TV costs money, so why should I go to a theatre?
Anyway, good war flick. Reminds me of a Comboy and Indian thing. You know, good guys take out bad guys at 100 meters with pistol shots!

The one good thing is that the movie never makes an attempt to explain who the bad guys are. They're just "Skinnies" to be mowed down by awesome American firepower. I call this the good thing because I have a feeling that in real life the Delta Force and Rangers didn't know who they were either!!!
Cheers, D

D.W. · Post by **D.W.** » Sun Dec 08, 2002 12:45 pm

Great movie. I thought they did a quite realistic portrayal of the Rangers, as far as gear is concerned. I think they showed at the beginning Adid (or someone associated with him) hijacking a U.N. aid shipment of food.
But they did not dwell on making the Somali's "bad guys", and this was simply a boneheaded operation for Americans to take part in. Not only the raid on Adid's HQ but even being there in the first place. Not enough firepower and not enough of a presence to be either peacekeepers or a military component for operations like this one. Good flick, I liked it.

charlie don't surf · Post by **charlie don't surf** » Sun Dec 08, 2002 2:20 pm

As far as I know the movie was sponsored by the department of defense thus the accuracy of equipment. I saw a documentary about it, they recieved some intensive training by rangers so that the actors would know how to move etc.

regards

D.W. · Post by **D.W.** » Sun Dec 08, 2002 2:26 pm

charlie don't surf wrote:As far as I know the movie was sponsored by the department of defense thus the accuracy of equipment. I saw a documentary about it, they recieved some intensive training by rangers so that the actors would know how to move etc.

regards

That is very interesting, I never heard that. It definitely had the right equipment, the Loach observation helicopters, the UH-60's and all the soldiers equipment defintely looked like exactly what they would carry. I think the only questionable piece of equipment were the helmets worn by the Delta Force guys who were killed rescuing the downed pilot (and awarded the Medal of Honor) and while distinguishing themselves from Rangers for moviegoers I don't think they were those types of helmets.

Sam H. · Post by **Sam H.** » Sun Dec 08, 2002 2:45 pm

The story behind the actual events is just as interesting. Without going into the merits of the mission, it was largely uncovered by the media that the commanders on the ground requested armor to aid in their operations are were turned down by the Clinton administration.

Did we not learn our lesson from Vietnam? Its a shame that so many brave men died in a forgotten part of the world.

charlie don't surf · Post by **charlie don't surf** » Sun Dec 08, 2002 2:51 pm

In my opinion it also shows how hard it is to cooperate with US troops, if it weren't for all the hush- hush perhaps the operation might have ended in another way.

regards

Commissar D, the Evil · Sun Dec 08, 2002 3:03 pm

Hi Sam, as I recall, the US didn't have any armor in Somalia at the time.
But it really struck me how little the troops seemed to know about the country and the people. The movie made it seem like they lived up in their compound, complete with roasted game, and had little contact with the locals. Not even Somali "advisors" or "interpreters".
It's sad, because I believe the U.S.'s motives for being there were humanitarian. How that warped into a "grab the bad guy" scenario would make an interesting story. Best Regards, David

Einsamer_Wolf · Post by **Einsamer_Wolf** » Sun Dec 08, 2002 3:26 pm

Just remember-- Bill Clinton was commander in chief. He takes the blame of this. I vaguely recall taht the movie indicated the Administration did not want any armor, bc of PR reasons.

Best Wishes

Einsamer Wolf

D.W. · Post by **D.W.** » Sun Dec 08, 2002 3:38 pm

Einsamer_Wolf wrote:Just remember-- Bill Clinton was commander in chief. He takes the blame of this. I vaguely recall taht the movie indicated the Administration did not want any armor, bc of PR reasons.

Best Wishes

Einsamer Wolf

Well, it was George Bush who came up with the idea and authorized the deployment of troops there in the first place. As bad an idea as leaving Saddam in Baghdad in 1991.

But that is another thread..........

Nate · Post by **Nate** » Sun Dec 08, 2002 5:47 pm

The helmets the Delta troops are wearing is different style tactical helmet that only Special Opns soldiers are issued at this time.

Best,

Nate

Commissar D, the Evil · Sun Dec 08, 2002 5:52 pm

Hi Nate, thanks for the info! One thing though, in honor of the Soviet Union--you've got to admit that the AK-47 and the RPG made an awesome pair of weapons in anyone's hands! Cheers, D, the EviL

Wolfkin · Post by **Wolfkin** » Sun Dec 08, 2002 8:26 pm

Well, I thought the movie was pretty good. Except the way some things were displayed. I had a discussion on another forum and found it really hard to explain tactics to civilians who had never been in the army before. Or maybe the problem was that the persons involved thought that I was picking on the U.S. soldiers, which was NOT the case. I was voicing my opinion of the terrible tactics that were displayed by troops who were apparently elite.

So, please let me explain my position. I believe the tactics displayed by the troops were horrible. I really hope this is not the way they fight in real life. Actually, I KNOW this is not the way they fight in real life. I know that this is a movie but most movie-goers DO NOT KNOW this fact. I know most movies show this "running around" view of combat. Movies can be very misleading to the general public who do not know any better.

Let me give examples:

When they are moving from the LZ towards their objective they are all bunched up and not moving in proper fire team or section formations. There is no scouting or screening maneuvers.

When they are repelling from the choppers the first guys down just stand there and watch the other guys repel down. Big NO-NO. The first guys down should secure the area and screen and cover the other guys that are repelling.

Way too much running around in big groups like they are on parade or something. No fire teams, proper sections or any type of tactical formations. Also no proper orders by section leaders or platoon leaders. Whatever happened to... "Contact!"

The following is one of the actions a platoon or section leader can choose when his unit comes under enemy fire:

Identify where the enemy fire is coming from. Lay down suppressive fire on their position. Move in with coordinated fire teams and wipe them out.

I understand that it is a movie. It is just when I see things like this I imagine if I were there. What I would do and what my responsibility to my men would be. I know that it most likely did not happen the way it was displayed in the movie, at least I sure as hell hope not.

I understand that they were ambushed and in a very difficult situation. They did a good job and managed to get out with relatively light casualties considering the situation. I am glad they made it. I believe that the movie could have done a better job in showing the tactics that they would have used, because, I know that these kinds of tactics would have been used because that is what you are taught when you are in the Army.

It is simple. If you don't use proper tactics then you will be dead. I am picking on the movie guys NOT the real guys. Just to make it simple...if I was leading an attack on these guys, with the type of tactics that they were using in the movie...I would have been able to wipe them out quite easily and in a very short time.

Well anyways, I am rambling now. Heehee...BUT at least they are making war movies and better ones then there used to be!!!

Cheers,

Wolfkin

Commissar D, the Evil · Sun Dec 08, 2002 8:37 pm

Well Johnny, another problem with the movie was that fire discipline was non-existent, which I guess doesn't matter if you're an actor using those guns that never run out of bullets. Loved the way everytime the Americans fired, two or four Somalis would bite the dust. And there was the grenade toss into a 3rd or 4th floor window from maybe 40 yards away that any major league pitcher would have been proud of. But it was all action, so I can't complain too much. Best Regards, David

Wolfkin · Post by **Wolfkin** » Sun Dec 08, 2002 8:55 pm

Yes, true my valiant foe!

You are right, the action was good and I was on the edge of my seat a lot when I was watching it. I was even ducking and flinching a bit. It was a good movie. But, of course with the flaws that you and I found. I guess I can live with all that, though. It is good to see that War movies are getting a bit more popular now. I hope that more will be made!

Cheers,

Wolfkin

Jason Pipes · Post by **Jason Pipes** » Sun Dec 08, 2002 8:58 pm

If you want a really great documentary on the battle, the events leading up to and during it, and interviews with those that took part, seek out the Frontline documentary Ambush in Mogadishu. It is excellent. There is also a website about the documentary with additional interview footage, more info, weblinks, etc.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/