History Headscratchers / RedDawn1984

7th Sep '15 4:45:47 AM CrypticMirror
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Except they are LITERALLY INVADERS. Who shoot down unarmed, helpless civilians in the street. Even the most naive, idealistic soldier would have trouble justifying that to themselves. You cant invade a country and complain when the people living there shoot at you.

to:

** Except they are LITERALLY INVADERS. Who shoot down unarmed, helpless civilians in the street. Even the most naive, idealistic soldier would have trouble justifying that to themselves. You cant invade a country and complain when the people living there shoot at you.you.
*** Yes they can, chalk it up to a combination of MoralMyopia and RealityIsUnrealistic. Consider the reaction of the general public, and coalition active combatants, during the 2000s to troop casualties in Iraq. [[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement And that is all I'm going to say on that subject]].
6th Sep '15 8:11:02 PM SilentStranger
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** The Soviet footsoldiers did not make the decision to launch nuclear weapons or invade a foreign nation. They're just some young guys serving their country and doing what they're told, not entirely unlike many of the Wolverines.

to:

** The Soviet footsoldiers did not make the decision to launch nuclear weapons or invade a foreign nation. They're just some young guys serving their country and doing what they're told, not entirely unlike many of the Wolverines.Wolverines.
** Except they are LITERALLY INVADERS. Who shoot down unarmed, helpless civilians in the street. Even the most naive, idealistic soldier would have trouble justifying that to themselves. You cant invade a country and complain when the people living there shoot at you.
22nd Aug '15 12:30:41 PM AFP
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Is it just me, or is the NotSoDifferent moment in the movie completely pointless? In what way are the Wolverines in any way like the Soviets? The Soviets are an invading force that has used nuclear warfare and executed civilians. The Wolverines have...killed enemy combatants. Not to mention they're guerilla fighters and dont have the capacity to take and keep prisoners of war, making execution the only logistical alternative. So how exactly does the comparison work?

to:

* Is it just me, or is the NotSoDifferent moment in the movie completely pointless? In what way are the Wolverines in any way like the Soviets? The Soviets are an invading force that has used nuclear warfare and executed civilians. The Wolverines have...killed enemy combatants. Not to mention they're guerilla fighters and dont have the capacity to take and keep prisoners of war, making execution the only logistical alternative. So how exactly does the comparison work?work?
** The Soviet footsoldiers did not make the decision to launch nuclear weapons or invade a foreign nation. They're just some young guys serving their country and doing what they're told, not entirely unlike many of the Wolverines.
11th Aug '15 6:00:44 PM YT45
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** There's more than just the one machine gunner (actually the vehicle commander). Every tank also has a machine gun mounted coaxially with the main gun, plus the tanks likely have thermal imagers that could negate their camouflage. It was still a rookie mistake for the tank commanders to be buttoned up at the time.


Added DiffLines:

*** Actually, the T-72 is a very capable main battle tank, which is why it's still in production for the Russian military today. The kill ratios in Iraq were primarily indicative of the fact that Iraqi tankers were far more concerned with looking cool in their badass tanks than actually being competent in the operation of same. In the hands of a crew that knows what the hell they're doing, the T-72 is extremely dangerous. The Abrams is a better tank overall, but 2 on 1 would be bad odds with Red Army Guards in the mix. Additionally, the Abrams is in the open on lower ground, while the T-72s are hull-down on high ground, and it's clear that the Armored Cav guys can't see the Russians (hence Tanner popping smoke to mark the target, and the Armored Cav wasting the T-72 immediately afterwards).
10th Jul '15 1:52:47 PM SlaughterhouseDb
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Other considerations are that Tanner is an Air Force pilot who should have almost no ground combat skills (kudos on his efforts though!), tanks tend to have [[RhymesOnADime latches on the hatches]] ''specifically'' to prevent infantry from dropping grenades in, and that attrition might have reduced the available tanks in the area to just a handful.

to:

** Other considerations are that Tanner is an Air Force pilot who should have almost no ground combat skills (kudos on his efforts though!), tanks tend to have [[RhymesOnADime latches on the hatches]] ''specifically'' to prevent infantry from dropping grenades in, and that attrition might have reduced the available tanks in the area to just a handful. As well, American tankers (and there's no reason to believe this isn't tankers in general) have a term called [[UnusualEuphemism "Scratch My Back"]] which is used when overrun by infantry; one tank showers the other with machinegun fire to kill attacking soldiers, which the tank is immune to. The military tendency to label controls with acronyms might make seizing control of a Soviet tank an fruitless endeavor even if the Wolverines could gain entry.
10th Jul '15 1:40:11 PM SlaughterhouseDb
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** Other considerations are that Tanner is an Air Force pilot who should have almost no ground combat skills (kudos on his efforts though!), tanks tend to have [[RhymesOnADime latches on the hatches]] ''specifically'' to prevent infantry from dropping grenades in, and that attrition might have reduced the available tanks in the area to just a handful.
3rd Jul '15 6:10:02 PM SilentStranger
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Ironically, as the incredibly lopsided kill ratios in the two Gulf Wars showed, an actual tank battle between one M1 Abrams and two T-72s would have been over in a matter of seconds and the Wolverines wouldn't even have had time to get involved. But in 1985 everyone was too gulled by Soviet propaganda/taking counsel from their fears to recognize that Soviet tanks would prove to be little more than shooting gallery ducks against the M1.

to:

** Ironically, as the incredibly lopsided kill ratios in the two Gulf Wars showed, an actual tank battle between one M1 Abrams and two T-72s would have been over in a matter of seconds and the Wolverines wouldn't even have had time to get involved. But in 1985 everyone was too gulled by Soviet propaganda/taking counsel from their fears to recognize that Soviet tanks would prove to be little more than shooting gallery ducks against the M1.M1.
* Is it just me, or is the NotSoDifferent moment in the movie completely pointless? In what way are the Wolverines in any way like the Soviets? The Soviets are an invading force that has used nuclear warfare and executed civilians. The Wolverines have...killed enemy combatants. Not to mention they're guerilla fighters and dont have the capacity to take and keep prisoners of war, making execution the only logistical alternative. So how exactly does the comparison work?
1st Mar '15 11:13:54 AM JustKnown
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Ironically, as the incredibly lopsided kill ratios in the two Gulf Wars showed, an actual tank battle between one M1 Abrams and two T-72s would have been over in a matter of seconds and the Wolverines wouldn't even have had time to get involved. But in 1985 everyone was too gulled by Soviet propaganda/taking counsel from their fears to recognize that Soviet tanks would prove to be little more than shooting gallery ducks in a conflict with modern western armor.

to:

** Ironically, as the incredibly lopsided kill ratios in the two Gulf Wars showed, an actual tank battle between one M1 Abrams and two T-72s would have been over in a matter of seconds and the Wolverines wouldn't even have had time to get involved. But in 1985 everyone was too gulled by Soviet propaganda/taking counsel from their fears to recognize that Soviet tanks would prove to be little more than shooting gallery ducks in a conflict with modern western armor.against the M1.
1st Mar '15 11:12:41 AM JustKnown
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** First off, that military officer was trained in fighter to fighter combat (He even says how good he is at it), not ground combat. While Tanner does know how to plan a major assault on an enemy stronghold (the theater breakout), that was with time to prepare, and plan. Dealing with the tanks was on the spot, and he likely couldn't figure out what he had to do right then and there. Also, US Armor doctrine doesn't allow tanks and transports to 'bunch up', especially in cases where air supremacy hasn't been achieved 100%. While it could be argued that only American fighters were even in the area, it should be pointed out that the US was likely operating under the assumption that that wouldn't last long, so it would be better to move like there were enemy fighters that could drop by at any time, then not. As for the Soviet tanks not having any infantry supporting them, that could be explained by the tanks in question likely operating in odd 'recon by fire' role. Basically, they move up, and if they take fire, they report the situation, and open up on the enemy until backup arrives. Which was all the more reason for the Wolverines to scoot out of there the moment Tanner popped the smoke, because the Abrams wasn't going to be the only thing shooting at it in a few seconds...

to:

** First off, that military officer was trained in fighter to fighter combat (He even says how good he is at it), not ground combat. While Tanner does know how to plan a major assault on an enemy stronghold (the theater breakout), that was with time to prepare, and plan. Dealing with the tanks was on the spot, and he likely couldn't figure out what he had to do right then and there. Also, US Armor doctrine doesn't allow tanks and transports to 'bunch up', especially in cases where air supremacy hasn't been achieved 100%. While it could be argued that only American fighters were even in the area, it should be pointed out that the US was likely operating under the assumption that that wouldn't last long, so it would be better to move like there were enemy fighters that could drop by at any time, then not. As for the Soviet tanks not having any infantry supporting them, that could be explained by the tanks in question likely operating in odd 'recon by fire' role. Basically, they move up, and if they take fire, they report the situation, and open up on the enemy until backup arrives. Which was all the more reason for the Wolverines to scoot out of there the moment Tanner popped the smoke, because the Abrams wasn't going to be the only thing shooting at it in a few seconds...seconds...
** Ironically, as the incredibly lopsided kill ratios in the two Gulf Wars showed, an actual tank battle between one M1 Abrams and two T-72s would have been over in a matter of seconds and the Wolverines wouldn't even have had time to get involved. But in 1985 everyone was too gulled by Soviet propaganda/taking counsel from their fears to recognize that Soviet tanks would prove to be little more than shooting gallery ducks in a conflict with modern western armor.
6th Oct '14 10:27:39 PM Tank50us
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** There is an understandable reluctance to go anywhere near the Russian tanks that are in the process of being shot at by American tanks, especially after the Colonel dies from friendly fire while doing precisely that.

to:

** There is an understandable reluctance to go anywhere near the Russian tanks that are in the process of being shot at by American tanks, especially after the Colonel dies from friendly fire while doing precisely that.that.
** First off, that military officer was trained in fighter to fighter combat (He even says how good he is at it), not ground combat. While Tanner does know how to plan a major assault on an enemy stronghold (the theater breakout), that was with time to prepare, and plan. Dealing with the tanks was on the spot, and he likely couldn't figure out what he had to do right then and there. Also, US Armor doctrine doesn't allow tanks and transports to 'bunch up', especially in cases where air supremacy hasn't been achieved 100%. While it could be argued that only American fighters were even in the area, it should be pointed out that the US was likely operating under the assumption that that wouldn't last long, so it would be better to move like there were enemy fighters that could drop by at any time, then not. As for the Soviet tanks not having any infantry supporting them, that could be explained by the tanks in question likely operating in odd 'recon by fire' role. Basically, they move up, and if they take fire, they report the situation, and open up on the enemy until backup arrives. Which was all the more reason for the Wolverines to scoot out of there the moment Tanner popped the smoke, because the Abrams wasn't going to be the only thing shooting at it in a few seconds...
This list shows the last 10 events of 33. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.RedDawn1984