Follow TV Tropes

Following

History Headscratchers / RedDawn1984

Go To

OR

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** 1) They possibly shot up the high school because they were indeed miles off course. They *might* have actually thought it was a military school or installation. As for continuing to rape and pillage, it's not explained. 3) The soldier correctly realized that he was probably toast and was grasping at straws, trying to find something that would work. The US tends to harp on Geneva Convention type notions than the Russians (at least from the point of view of this movie). And Jed's "never heard of it!" reaction suggests that he had indeed heard of it.

to:

** 1) They possibly shot up the high school because they were indeed miles off course. They *might* have actually thought it was a military school or installation. As for continuing to rape and pillage, it's not explained. 3) The soldier correctly realized that he was probably toast and was grasping at straws, trying to find something that would work. The US tends to harp on Geneva Convention type notions than the Russians (at least from the point of view of this movie). And Jed's "never heard of it!" reaction suggests that he had indeed heard of it.it.
* When Robert's facing off with the HIND helicopter, he shoots an RPG at it. RPGs are designed to crack open tanks, which carry much heavier armor than any helicopter, even the Mil-24 HIND, could ever carry. Why didn't he blow that chopper into smithereens?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Added

Added DiffLines:

** Bottom line this can all be chalked up to artistic license. At the time every single model showed that there was virtually no way for a conflict between the USA and USSR not to eventually go nuclear. This was also the era of nuclear war films like War Games, The Day After, etc. This was a good opportunity to show that a conventional war would still really really suck.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** We only get a very tiny view of this alternate history. The world has certainly turned mostly against the US. The US might actually be holding back the subs to deter other potential adversaries. Or perhaps the subs were somehow taken out. Tanner says their ICBMs were much more accurate than expected, maybe in this world they somehow took out the subs too and he may not even know about that. He does talk a lot about infiltrators screwing up operations.

to:

** We only get a very tiny view of this alternate history. The world has certainly turned mostly against the US. The US might actually be holding back the subs to deter other potential adversaries. Or perhaps the subs were somehow taken out. Tanner says their ICBMs [=ICBMs=] were much more accurate than expected, maybe in this world they somehow took out the subs too and he may not even know about that. He does talk a lot about infiltrators screwing up operations.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


*** That's complete bullshit, the T-72s by used by the Iraqi's were operated by inferior crews and were early export variants armed with steel-core sabot ammunition the Soviets had phased out in ''1973''. Most of the mainline T-72s in Europe had Kontankt-5 ERA, which tests proved the M1A1's 120mm gun could not reliably penetrate even with its M829A1 "Silver Bullet" round. And don't even get me started on the T-80U.
*** Your assumptions are incorrect, and the AFADS round has consistently penetrated even the most modern T-72s. While no M1A1 has ever been penetrated by a T-72. I don't know what tests you are talking about but I have some first hand experience on this subject. The T-72 is old tech, it's cheap, reliable (except for the auto-loading system) and that's about it. Like most Soviet era weapons, it's a glass cannon.

to:

*** That's complete bullshit, the T-72s by used by the Iraqi's were operated by inferior crews and were early export variants armed with steel-core sabot ammunition the Soviets had phased out in ''1973''. Most of the mainline T-72s in Europe had Kontankt-5 ERA, which tests proved the M1A1's [=M1A1=]'s 120mm gun could not reliably penetrate even with its M829A1 "Silver Bullet" round. And don't even get me started on the T-80U.
*** Your assumptions are incorrect, and the AFADS round has consistently penetrated even the most modern T-72s. While no M1A1 [=M1A1=] has ever been penetrated by a T-72. I don't know what tests you are talking about but I have some first hand experience on this subject. The T-72 is old tech, it's cheap, reliable (except for the auto-loading system) and that's about it. Like most Soviet era weapons, it's a glass cannon.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


*** Jed didn't need to accept any recruits, and it still doesn't answer the question of why they didn't receive more assistance. You'd expect multiple resistance groups running around, unaffiliated with each other, and for no other purpose than to make life as miserable as possible for the communist occupying force. We do see the Wolverines passing out AKs to everybody at the prison camp, just because Jed isn't accepting recruits doesn't mean that unaffiliated resistance groups aren't running around.

to:

*** Jed didn't need to accept any recruits, and it still doesn't answer the question of why they didn't receive more assistance. You'd expect multiple resistance groups running around, unaffiliated with each other, and for no other purpose than to make life as miserable as possible for the communist occupying force. We do see the Wolverines passing out AKs [=AKs=] to everybody at the prison camp, just because Jed isn't accepting recruits doesn't mean that unaffiliated resistance groups aren't running around.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
corrected misspellings


* Why don't the wolverines get more recruits or at least assistance from the townspeople as time goes on? Considering how half the town is either in concentration camps or randomly executed every time the wolverines strike, one would think after a while the townspeople would really, really want to help drive their oppressors off. I would think that the heavy-handed punishment of people not involved by the communists because of the Wolverines blew up a tank would drive at least some people to figure "If I'm gonna get shot, I want to take at least one of them with me".

to:

* Why don't the wolverines Wolverines get more recruits or at least assistance from the townspeople as time goes on? Considering how half the town is either in concentration camps or randomly executed every time the wolverines Wolverines strike, one would think after a while the townspeople would really, really want to help drive their oppressors off. I would think that the heavy-handed punishment of people not involved uninvolved civilians by the communists because of the Wolverines blew up a tank would drive at least some people to figure "If I'm gonna get shot, I want to take at least one of them with me".



* So, WTF was going on during the tank battle? Two Russian tanks and one US tank just show up and start slugging it out in the snow, all three completely unsupported by any other tanks, infantry or support vehicles, which seems really odd since it runs contrary to basic armored doctrine (Tanks support infantry, Infantry support tanks). Most importantly, Infantry keeps enemy infantry from getting close to tanks and...say, climbing on top of the tank, prying open the hatch and dropping a grenade inside (killing the crew). Which being said, why do the wolverines completely fail at something that should be so simple? Both Russian tanks seem to be buttoned up, so they wouldn't be able to see the wolverines anyway (unless the wolverines stood right in front of them). It should have been a simple matter to climb the closest one, kill the crew, and use the disabled tank as cover to assault the other. There's a single machine-gunner on the other tank who poses the only threat to this plan, which should be no problem for them considering how easily the wolverines seem to wipe out entire squads and convoys. What makes it worse is that they have a senior military officer helping them (who dies in the assault) who doesn't seem to understand the whole "Sneak up on tank, use tank for cover against other tank, kill tank crew, repeat" idea.

to:

* So, WTF was going on during the tank battle? Two Russian tanks and one US tank just show up and start slugging it out in the snow, all three completely unsupported by any other tanks, infantry or support vehicles, which seems really odd since it runs contrary to basic armored doctrine (Tanks support infantry, Infantry support tanks). Most importantly, Infantry keeps enemy infantry from getting close to tanks and...say, climbing on top of the tank, prying open the hatch and dropping a grenade inside (killing the crew). Which being said, why do the wolverines Wolverines completely fail at something that should be so simple? Both Russian tanks seem to be buttoned up, so they wouldn't be able to see the wolverines Wolverines anyway (unless the wolverines Wolverines stood right in front of them). It should have been a simple matter to climb the closest one, kill the crew, and use the disabled tank as cover to assault the other. There's a single machine-gunner on the other tank who poses the only threat to this plan, which should be no problem for them considering how easily the wolverines Wolverines seem to wipe out entire squads and convoys. What makes it worse is that they have a senior military officer helping them (who dies in the assault) who doesn't seem to understand the whole "Sneak up on tank, use tank for cover against other tank, kill tank crew, repeat" idea.



** 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 can't 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, naïve, idealistic soldier would have trouble justifying that to themselves. You can't invade a country and complain when the people living there shoot at you.



** Just because they are an invading army doesn't mean they are still people. People who have hobbies and loved ones and dreams. It's like people who are weirded out by pictures of evil people throughout history doing regular things. It's not like Hitler spent all his free time sitting in the dark, wringing his hands, and muttering "Jews...".

to:

** Just because they are an invading army doesn't mean they are still no longer people. People who have hobbies and loved ones and dreams. It's like people who are weirded out by pictures of evil people throughout history doing regular things. It's not like Hitler spent all his free time sitting in the dark, wringing his hands, and muttering "Jews...".

Changed: 288

Removed: 134

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


*** Because 1) that means the leader either has to pick someone to go or has to go himself and make everyone wait, which at that point would have bred resentment, and 2) it wouldn't have mattered, the ambush didn't consist of a couple of guys waiting to jump out and go "A-''ha''!"
*** they did have one person check it out before they all ran down to gather up the food then they retreated to a semi covered area and it even appeared that some time, probably only 30 min but still, before the helicopters showed up. still not terribly bright on the kids part but it was apparently a well thought out ambush buy the Russians to get them to let their guard fully down, which worked shown in how one of the girls was playing around with the food

to:

*** Because 1) that means the leader either has to pick someone to go or has to go himself and make everyone wait, which at that point would have bred resentment, and 2) it wouldn't have mattered, the ambush didn't consist of a couple of guys waiting to jump out and go "A-''ha''!"
*** they did have one person check it out before they all ran down to gather up the food then they retreated to a semi covered area and it even appeared that some time, probably only 30 min but still, before the helicopters showed up. still not terribly bright on the kids kids' part but it was apparently a well thought out ambush buy the Russians to get them to let their guard fully down, which worked shown in how one of the girls was playing around with the food



** Given that the Wolverines make it to and from town on foot, that puts a rough upper limit on how far away their base is. The Spetsnaz almost certainly told him 'you have X hours to make it back; try to stall any longer than that and we'll pop your family just for fucking around with us'. After all, stalling for time ''would'' be the obvious move. As far as leaving a message, the kids are not professionals -- they don't have dead drops and contingency plans set up, and its not like he can use a radio or call them on the phone either. The only way he has to get a message back to their camp is to have someone carry it there on foot, which is obviously not an option.
** So why doesn't Daryl at least tell them "Hey, they made me eat a tracker" when he gets back so at least they'd be prepared? And if they made him swallow it, wouldn't he have just crapped it out soon enough? Also, the idea of using his family as leverage doesn't seem like it would be useful at that point considering that until then the response to a wolverine attack was "Murder a bunch of random civilians", despite the fact it wasn't actually stopping the attacks and was just pissing the wolverines off even more. Considering all the war crimes we see early in the movie, it's really hard to see why any promises not to murder ones family if one cooperates would be honored.

to:

** Given that the Wolverines make it to and from town on foot, that puts a rough upper limit on how far away their base is. The Spetsnaz almost certainly told him 'you 'You have X hours to make it back; try to stall any longer than that and we'll pop your family just for fucking around with us'. After all, stalling for time ''would'' be the obvious move. As far as leaving a message, the kids are not professionals -- they don't have dead drops and contingency plans set up, and its not like he can use a radio or call them on the phone either. The only way he has to get a message back to their camp is to have someone carry it there on foot, which is obviously not an option.
** So why doesn't Daryl at least tell them "Hey, they made me eat a tracker" when he gets back so at least they'd be prepared? And if they made him swallow it, wouldn't he have just crapped it out soon enough? Also, the idea of using his family as leverage doesn't seem like it would be useful at that point considering that until then the response to a wolverine attack was "Murder a bunch of random civilians", despite the fact it wasn't actually stopping the attacks and was just pissing the wolverines off even more. Considering all the war crimes we see early in the movie, it's really hard to see why any promises not to murder ones one's family if one cooperates would be honored.



* What exactly makes this remote small town so strategically important that it should be taken over in the first wave of the invasion, and then maintain a heavy military presence there at all times?

to:

* What exactly makes this remote small town so strategically important that it should be taken over in the first wave of the invasion, and then maintain a heavy military presence there at all times?



* So I get the Silos somehow got taken out by a first strike(despite things such as the fact Silos are damn hard to kill even if you are dropping another nuke on them). So what happened to the rest of the Nuclear Triad? The US Navy had quite a few Submarines(which presumably are extremely hard to track, even by the rest of the US Navy. You aren't gonna find them until the missiles are already in the air) whose sole purpose in life is to wait for the Go code to come down and launch their 16 or so nukes(plus more if the missles were MIRV'd) at the USSR, and the US Air Force is famous for Strategic Air Command keeping nuclear armed bombers in the air 24 hours a day just in case of a Soviet Attack. Being as the beginning of the film established the Soviets were being incredibly aggressive and Europe pretty much decided "Screw NATO" you'd think all of those Nuclear Forces would be on High Alert at all times(so that taking them unawares would be extremely difficult if not impossible). And it's really difficult to argue we just didn't use the nukes, because if you aren't going to us them when the enemy (presumably) already struck first AND invaded your country, when would you use them?
** Maybe whoever was in charge decided that it was better Red than Dead. That was always the big unknown in the Cold War, would the US President really do it. Would they decided to irradiate the world and doom humanity to living in the dark ages (at best), or would they treat the nuclear arsenal as a big bluff and once it had been called; decide that it was better lose and have some vestiges of their nation (not to mention every other nation on Earth) survive and maybe rise again. Its never really been answered, thank God, and you can certainly argue some Presidents would be more likely to go one way and some the other, but we'll never really know now. So maybe in this, the President at the time was one that decided that it was better to be conquered and use mostly conventional weapons to resist.
** You forget that the President isn't the only one involved in this decision. If the Russians nuked the midwest, took out NORAD(presumably) and invaded the midwest in an surprise first strike, if the President decided that even a soviet first strike and executing American civilians in occupied areas and putting Americans in gulags wasn't enough to warrant nuclear retaliation, I can imagine congress, not to mention to Joint Chiefs and the [=DoD=], would be looking for anyway to remove the President from office and put someone into office who would strike back. Though just allowing the Russians to invade the US mainland and Nuke us would likely be more the enough for the president's approval rating to drop to 0% pretty damn quickly. Refusing to strike back would be asking for a military coup.
** So the film's scenario was unrealistic. Gee, nobody's ever pointed that our before.

to:

* So I get the Silos somehow got taken out by a first strike(despite strike (despite things such as the fact Silos are damn hard to kill even if you are dropping another nuke on them). So what happened to the rest of the Nuclear Triad? The US Navy had quite a few Submarines(which submarines (which presumably are extremely hard to track, even by the rest of the US Navy. You aren't gonna find them until the missiles are already in the air) whose sole purpose in life is to wait for the Go code to come down and launch their 16 or so nukes(plus more if the missles missiles were MIRV'd) at the USSR, and the US Air Force is famous for Strategic Air Command keeping nuclear armed bombers in the air 24 hours a day just in case of a Soviet Attack. Being as the beginning of the film established the Soviets were being incredibly aggressive and Europe pretty much decided "Screw NATO" you'd think all of those Nuclear Forces would be on High Alert at all times(so times (so that taking them unawares would be extremely difficult if not impossible). And it's really difficult to argue we just didn't use the nukes, because if you aren't going to us them when the enemy (presumably) already struck first AND invaded your country, when would you use them?
** Maybe whoever was in charge decided that it was better Red than Dead. That was always the big unknown in the Cold War, would the US President really do it. Would they decided to irradiate the world and doom humanity to living in the dark ages (at best), or would they treat the nuclear arsenal as a big bluff and once it had been called; decide that it was better lose and have some vestiges of their nation (not to mention every other nation on Earth) survive and maybe rise again. Its It's never really been answered, thank God, and you can certainly argue some Presidents would be more likely to go one way and some the other, but we'll never really know now. So maybe in this, the President at the time was one that decided that it was better to be conquered and use mostly conventional weapons to resist.
** You forget that the President isn't the only one involved in this decision. If the Russians nuked the midwest, Midwest, took out NORAD(presumably) and invaded the midwest Midwest in an surprise first strike, if the President decided that even a soviet first strike and executing American civilians in occupied areas and putting Americans in gulags wasn't enough to warrant nuclear retaliation, I can imagine congress, not to mention to Joint Chiefs and the [=DoD=], would be looking for anyway to remove the President from office and put someone into office who would strike back. Though just allowing the Russians to invade the US mainland and Nuke us would likely be more the enough for the president's approval rating to drop to 0% pretty damn quickly. Refusing to strike back would be asking for a military coup.
** So the film's scenario was unrealistic. Gee, nobody's ever pointed that our out before.



* For that matter, it's outright
stated that the Russians nuked the Chinese. China has it's own nuclear arsenal. So again, why isn't half the USSR glowing in the dark?

to:

* For that matter, it's outright
outright stated that the Russians nuked the Chinese. China has it's its own nuclear arsenal. So again, why isn't half the USSR glowing in the dark?



*** The Chinese nuclear arsenal at the time was a dozen ICBM that used non-storable liquid fuels, a couple score of intermediate and short range missiles, and some obsolescent medium bombers. They might be able to toast Moscow, if they could get their missiles fueled and launched in time, and Moscow's ABM defenses didn't stop everything inbound, but now-way no-how were they hitting the Soviets the way we could have.
* So, WTF was going on during the tank battle? Two Russian tanks and one US tank just show up and start slugging it out in the snow, all three completely unsupported by any other tanks, infantry or support vehicles, which seems really odd since it runs contrary to basic armored doctrine(Tanks support infantry, Infantry support tanks). Most importantly, Infantry keeps enemy infantry from getting close to tanks and...say, climbing on top of the tank, prying open the hatch and dropping a grenade inside(killing the crew). Which being said, why do the wolverines completely fail at something that should be so simple? Both Russian tanks seem to be buttoned up, so they wouldn't be able to see the wolverines anyway(unless the wolverines stood right in front of them).It should have been a simple matter to climb the closest one, kill the crew, and use the disabled tank as cover to assault the other. There's a single machine-gunner on the other tank who poses the only threat to this plan, which should be no problem for them considering how easily the wolverines seem to wipe out entire squads and convoys. What makes it worse is that they have a senior military officer helping them(who dies in the assault) who doesn't seem to understand the whole "Sneak up on tank, use tank for cover against other tank, kill tank crew, repeat" idea.
** 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.

to:

*** The Chinese nuclear arsenal at the time was a dozen ICBM that used non-storable liquid fuels, a couple score of intermediate and short range short-range missiles, and some obsolescent medium bombers. They might be able to toast Moscow, if they could get their missiles fueled and launched in time, and Moscow's ABM defenses didn't stop everything inbound, but now-way no-how were they hitting the Soviets the way we could have.
* So, WTF was going on during the tank battle? Two Russian tanks and one US tank just show up and start slugging it out in the snow, all three completely unsupported by any other tanks, infantry or support vehicles, which seems really odd since it runs contrary to basic armored doctrine(Tanks doctrine (Tanks support infantry, Infantry support tanks). Most importantly, Infantry keeps enemy infantry from getting close to tanks and...say, climbing on top of the tank, prying open the hatch and dropping a grenade inside(killing inside (killing the crew). Which being said, why do the wolverines completely fail at something that should be so simple? Both Russian tanks seem to be buttoned up, so they wouldn't be able to see the wolverines anyway(unless anyway (unless the wolverines stood right in front of them).them). It should have been a simple matter to climb the closest one, kill the crew, and use the disabled tank as cover to assault the other. There's a single machine-gunner on the other tank who poses the only threat to this plan, which should be no problem for them considering how easily the wolverines seem to wipe out entire squads and convoys. What makes it worse is that they have a senior military officer helping them(who them (who dies in the assault) who doesn't seem to understand the whole "Sneak up on tank, use tank for cover against other tank, kill tank crew, repeat" idea.
** There's more than just the one machine gunner (actually the (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.



** 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...
** 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. If the soviets went through the Fulda Gap they would have been jammed up with too many hollowed out 72's till it was a stand still.
*** 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).
*** Except that is a complete myth about the Iraqi T-72's, most of them in Gulf-war 1, were soviet spec'd and were not only Republican Guard (saddam's elite) but also followed Soviet Tank doctrine to the letter. The truth is, that while American expectations of the soviet armor divisions were high, by the 1980's NATIO armor divisions outclassed the soviet divisions, especially with things like DU armor and better optics. Where as both had guns capable of reaching 4000m+, only the M1 (and the Leopard 2 if I remember correctly could accurately hit at that far and shoot as far as 2500m while moving. Basically, the soviets would be hitting the ground near nato tanks while nato tanks were blasting into their front armor. The only reason the 72 was still produced is because the T-80 was having massive production issues, which was crippled by the failing soviet (and recovering post-soviet) economy. Hence why the Chinese moved to a T-99 platform and now the russians are moving to that new T-90 and T-14.

to:

** First off, that military officer was trained in fighter to fighter 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 than 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...
** 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. If the soviets Soviets went through the Fulda Gap Gap, they would have been jammed up with too many hollowed out 72's till it was a stand still.
*** 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).
*** Except that is a complete myth about the Iraqi T-72's, most of them in Gulf-war 1, were soviet spec'd and were not only Republican Guard (saddam's (Saddam's elite) but also followed Soviet Tank doctrine to the letter. The truth is, that while American expectations of the soviet armor divisions were high, by the 1980's NATIO armor divisions outclassed the soviet divisions, especially with things like DU armor and better optics. Where as Whereas both had guns capable of reaching 4000m+, only the M1 (and the Leopard 2 if I remember correctly could accurately hit at that far and shoot as far as 2500m while moving. Basically, the soviets would be hitting the ground near nato NATO tanks while nato NATO tanks were blasting into their front armor. The only reason the 72 was still produced is because the T-80 was having massive production issues, which was crippled by the failing soviet (and recovering post-soviet) economy. Hence why the Chinese moved to a T-99 platform and now the russians Russians are moving to that new T-90 and T-14.



*** Your assumptions are incorrect, and the AFADS round has consistently penetrated even the most modern T-72s. While no M1A1 has ever been penetrated by a T-72. I don't know what tests you are talking about but I have some first hand experience on this subject. The T-72 is old tech, it's cheap, reliable (except for the auto-loading system) and that's about it. Like most Soviet era weapons it's a glass cannon.

to:

*** Your assumptions are incorrect, and the AFADS round has consistently penetrated even the most modern T-72s. While no M1A1 has ever been penetrated by a T-72. I don't know what tests you are talking about but I have some first hand experience on this subject. The T-72 is old tech, it's cheap, reliable (except for the auto-loading system) and that's about it. Like most Soviet era weapons weapons, it's a glass cannon.



** 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.
*** Tell that to US troops from the Vietnam, Iraq and Afghan conflicts who were LITERALLY INVADERS, shot civilians (excuse me,"insurgents") and yet still complain bitterly about having been shot at.
** The scene was probably haphazardly added when the writer realized he was getting a little ''too'' jingoistic. But it's really the banality of evil. Shooting civilians is their day job, and their failure to question their orders makes them terrible people, but they are still people, and [[WarIsHell war is hell]].

to:

** Except they are LITERALLY INVADERS. Who shoot down unarmed, helpless civilians in the street. street? Even the most naive, idealistic soldier would have trouble justifying that to themselves. You cant can't invade a country and complain when the people living there shoot at you.
*** Tell that to US troops from the Vietnam, Iraq and Afghan conflicts who were LITERALLY INVADERS, shot civilians (excuse me,"insurgents") me, "insurgents") and yet still complain bitterly about having been shot at.
** The scene was probably haphazardly added when the writer realized he was getting a little ''too'' jingoistic. But it's really the banality of evil. Shooting civilians is their day job, and their failure to question their orders makes them terrible people, but they are still people, and [[WarIsHell war is hell]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Dewicking Not So Different as it is now a disambig.


* 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 don't 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 NotSoDifferentRemark 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 don't have the capacity to take and keep prisoners of war, making execution the only logistical alternative. So how exactly does the comparison work?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** While I can't answer the first question, the answer to the second question is "because laws protect everybody." Think about civil law. Just because you say, broke into someone's house and robbed them, if on your way back from the robbery, someone mugs you, it doesn't mean you've lost your right to call the cops.

to:

** While I can't answer the first question, the answer to the second question is "because laws protect everybody." Think about civil law. Just because you say, broke into someone's house and robbed them, if on your way back from the robbery, someone mugs you, it doesn't mean you've lost your right to call the cops.cops.
** 1) They possibly shot up the high school because they were indeed miles off course. They *might* have actually thought it was a military school or installation. As for continuing to rape and pillage, it's not explained. 3) The soldier correctly realized that he was probably toast and was grasping at straws, trying to find something that would work. The US tends to harp on Geneva Convention type notions than the Russians (at least from the point of view of this movie). And Jed's "never heard of it!" reaction suggests that he had indeed heard of it.

Added: 166

Changed: 498

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* For that matter, it's outright stated that the Russians nuked the Chinese. China has it's own nuclear arsenal. So again, why isn't half the USSR glowing in the dark?

to:

** We only get a very tiny view of this alternate history. The world has certainly turned mostly against the US. The US might actually be holding back the subs to deter other potential adversaries. Or perhaps the subs were somehow taken out. Tanner says their ICBMs were much more accurate than expected, maybe in this world they somehow took out the subs too and he may not even know about that. He does talk a lot about infiltrators screwing up operations.
* For that matter, it's outright outright
stated that the Russians nuked the Chinese. China has it's own nuclear arsenal. So again, why isn't half the USSR glowing in the dark?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Were they caught because they were seen out in the open, or was there a tracker in the loot? It doesn't look like Spetsnaz expected them all to be watching at that exact moment and all run out there. If they were, they would have attacked immediately. Spetsnaz probably expected them to act far more cautiously. At any rate, burnout, exhaustion, starvation.

to:

** Were they caught because they were seen out in the open, or was there a tracker in the loot? It doesn't look like Spetsnaz expected them all to be watching at that exact moment and all run out there. If they were, they would have attacked immediately. Spetsnaz probably expected them to act far more cautiously. cautiously. At any rate, burnout, exhaustion, starvation.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Were they caught because they were seen out in the open, or was there a tracker in the loot? It doesn't look like Spetsnaz expected them all to be watching at that exact moment and all run out there. If they were, they would have attacked immediately. At any rate, burnout, exhaustion, starvation.

to:

** Were they caught because they were seen out in the open, or was there a tracker in the loot? It doesn't look like Spetsnaz expected them all to be watching at that exact moment and all run out there. If they were, they would have attacked immediately. Spetsnaz probably expected them to act far more cautiously. At any rate, burnout, exhaustion, starvation.

Top