The Military Thread

BBC: Victoria Cross: L/Cpl Josh Leakey recognised for valour

The Su-50 has some teething issues from what I understand but their 4.5th gen fighters like the Su-35, Mi G-35, and heavily upgraded Mi G-31 are going along just fine and continue to be terrifying

I actually covered this same article a post two pages ago.

The PRC looks forward to closer military ties with the Argentinians since they share a suppose image of as two nations sharing the same struggles with nationalistic territorial disputes with former imperial powers and analogizing the Falklands/Malvinas with the Diauyo Islands.

The general concern of worry is that Beijing may be giving the Argentinians discount prices in exchange for geopolitical favors. China has already made attempts to expand its soft power through infrastructure projects in various South American countries, the new Chinese-managed canal that's being built through Nicaragua for example. Having Argentina, one of the most powerful regional nations, under their wing would make a lot of other opportunities easier to take. I suspect that the reason why it was confirmed that the Pakistani ISI allowed the Chinese access to that modified Black Hawk instead of the Russians may have had something to do along this line.

Where Eagles Dare is a pretty good movie. It's a great companion to The Guns Of Navarone (one of my favorite movies), and both really capture the "daring infiltration" narrative for which MacLean's books are known. I wish the movie had used the more toned down violence from the book because some of their non-lethal tactics are actually relevant to the plot. On the other hand, the over-the-top shootouts at the end were pretty awesome.

It's been several years since I've seen Where Eagles Dare, and it brought back a lot of fond memories of staying up late watching war movies on TNT. These were the nights where I'd see The Big Red One, Hamburger Hill, Platoon, Heartbreak Ridge, The Deer Hunter, The Dirty Dozen, The Delta Force and plenty others running the gamut from hammy and cheesy to thoughtful and introspective.

edited 28th Feb '15 3:57:03 PM by Aprilla

Listing quite a few of my favorite flicks right there.

Aprilla: I always saw Full Metal Jacket as a satire of both war, the attitudes, and of course the Corps itself. Poking at the ugly side of it in somewhat jesting fashion with a few serious moments before going back to the now seemingly insane jesting. What is your take on it?

I'll have to watch it again tonight or tomorrow. I need to refresh my memory.

However, I don't think I'd quite call it a satire, though the movie has philosophical elements resembling a satire. It's definitely a critical examination of problems in personnel management, and it was fairly groundbreaking for being one of the first major motion pictures to establish a palatable commentary on dehumanization in military training.

Kubrick did take some necessary artistic liberties with his portrayal of the Marine Corps and the Vietnam War, but it's a very effective story. Some of the Vietnam veteran marines I've chatted with have said that while Kubrick makes some technical goofs, it's pretty accurate in its depiction of hazing and indoctrination.

I don't know. You've been through the training. What do you think? ^note  Different era notwithstanding

edited 28th Feb '15 4:32:55 PM by Aprilla

By comparison? Yeah things have changed a lot since that era but in general the overall attitudes and even some of the personalities are still kicking around today. The DI scenes aside from the striking and depantsing were pretty accurate. The infantry can be a little nuts but the majority of them are not Animal Mother nuts. There are a few like that though. The black and morbid sense of humor like the scene with the dead enemy trooper when Joker meets the crew in the field I would not be surprised to see. The obessession with the marksmanship and a focus on some form of warrior culture with things like, "The Warface", Marines kill kill kill etc is pretty spot on.

I think I may see it as satire from the perspective of my own experiences even if it is a bit more complex as a whole.

edited 28th Feb '15 4:41:30 PM by TuefelHundenIV

That makes sense. I've got it playing right now while I'm studying some Chinese.

It was a different era. There is the "E-4 mafia" in infantry circles: if someone keeps screwing up bringing the wrath of the first sergeant and the command down on the troops, the junior enlisted would gang up and beat the snot out of the shitbag problem soldier.

Well not only drill sergeants banned from hitting recruits, but hazing is now against army regs. I know of one NCO who got an Article 15 because his punishment was seen as hazing.

The biggest case of Values Dissonance is Patton. The man was born into a family with deep ties to the South (members of his family had fought for the CSA). He was heir to the southern aristocracy, so well read in the classics and very much the southern gentleman.

And this was also the man who swore up a blue streak (yes, the famous speech is toned down). A warrior poet who did believe in reincarnation. While a product of pre-civil right era US, he was very kind to the black soldiers who were his aides.

Several contemporary reviews of the movie missed the point: those critics said that the movie glorified war. Yes, the man was both General Ripper and The Neidermeyer at times. But to a US Army sucker punched at Pearl and humiliated at Kasserine, he was the general the US Army needed.

The speech in the beginning has been parodied to hell and back. Basically, it's a subtle dig at the man. The bugle call is "To The Colors", the salute to the flag. With Patton facing the audience it sounds like the music is saluting him as well. However, the speech to the 3rd Army shows why he was getting that respect. He rallies troops who had been hearing of defeat after defeat.

When I was a young girl, I liked Patton because I saw it as a "Ra ra America" movie, perfect for the 4th of July (when Daddy would put the movie on). And now? I see the movie as an epic look at a very complex man. A man born in the wrong century who's mouth and ego were his worst enemies.

As I understand it, Patton's attitudes towards the black troops under his command sat at an interesting intersection between the racism he had been raised with (that black troops were inherently inferior to white troops) and his unyielding standards for performance (that would be no excuse for them not to be better than German troops). One such unit, the 761st Tank Battalion (AKA the "Black Panthers"), would go on to earn a Presidential Unit Citation, with individual troops receiving 11 Silver Stars and a Medal of Honor.

It's a pity that Patton is an example of Tanks, but No Tanks however - the Shermans were being played by modern M60s while whatever panzers the Germans had were M24 Chaffees IIRC.

I recall Patton having a interesting Serious Business attitude when it came to business fashion - supposedly he mandated that all officers in the 3rd Army don neckties and button up their collars at all times, even in combat if the situation called for it.

Kellys Heroes was notable for its time for depicting the opposing sides' vehicles accurately, with the US Army actually using Shermans and the production obtaining excellent dressed-up T-34's for the Germans' Tigers.

Battle Of Britain is the definite war film to have a special place in my heart however, as it was the very first World War II film I ever watched alongside A Bridge Too Far. I have these two films to thank for my greater interests in the non-American perspectives of the war rather than the US-centric narratives present in countless Hollywood films, as they prominently depicted the British and Germans. It's a great pity for us history lovers that today's Hollywood wouldn't have the heart to make those kind of epic historical war films anymore.

edited 28th Feb '15 10:45:33 PM by FluffyMcChicken

It's not just the post-60's "Armies Are Evil" mindset that some producers have. It's expensive to get all those vehicles out there. Many World War Two and Korean War era vehicles exist in the single digit numbers. One war expert interviewed about the making of The Memphis Belle said that in about twenty years they won't be making World War 2 movies because most of the aircraft won't be flying due to a lack of spares.

The same goes with a lot of Cold War era jets and equipment. Several were withdrawn due to being obsolete or due to treaty (Pershing missiles for example). We're never going to get a live action Red Storm Rising movie due to a lot of the iconic aircraft having gone to the great hanger in the sky.

edited 1st Mar '15 1:11:03 PM by TairaMai

Why can't they just use CGI?

Because unless you go the full nine yards and pull out all the stops and spare no expense CGI looks fucking awful. Good CGI isn't cheap.

Though I'm reminded of Lord Of War and how the production team discovered it was actually cheaper to rent real guns and tanks from an actual arms dealer than to get mock ups and so on from proper companies.

Hell, Battle of Britain was only possible because they raided the Spanish Air Force for planes. And even then they could only get three air-worthy Hurricanes, and had to resort to models for Stukas.

CGI has limits, reflective surfaces, fire, water and lots of motion tends to be the big stumbling blocks. There is a lot of Just Plane Wrong and Tanks, but No Tanks unless it's one of those studios that really sweats the details.

CGI can do some impressive stunts, but animation is cheaper. Problem is that American audiences still think "animation = children" or "anime = tentacles".

edited 1st Mar '15 1:19:58 PM by TairaMai

Wouldn't custom making spare parts necessary to get something in flying/working condition (or hell, building a replica that is internally modern but externally accurate, like they do with the WWI tank from Warhorse) be less expensive than good CG?

No. Not only does such a thing require special manufacturing processes it requires certain skill sets that are not very common these days. It makes such things rather very expensive.

Depends. Aircraft aren't cheap. Strapping some sheet metal to a bulldozer and putting a fake gun on is rather cheaper.

edited 1st Mar '15 2:10:30 PM by Joesolo

To give you an example, building the Tornado steam locomotive cost over £3 million. It's a bit hard to dig up how much an original Peppercorn A1 cost to build (adjusted for inflation) since they were built in-house by the LNER.

Tuffel's right, most aircraft need specific parts made to order. Keep in mind that a lot of World War Two aircraft were designed to be maintained by a whole pipeline of parts, fuel and oils. Many were quickly knocked out with parts only built for them.

It gets expensive to replace some one off part that we've lost the blueprints for.

I'm pretty sure with a mix of Animatronic fake planes, Green Screens and CGI you can make a perfectly convincing aircraft even if all the spares are no longer in flying condition. And even if "Good CGI isn't cheap" thats irrelevant because most major movies these days have absolutely titanic effects budgets.

@ Deadbeat: And most of the parts and expertise were already on hand. Then again, most British main-line steam locomotives were built and maintained at the workshops of the companies that operated them.

edited 1st Mar '15 2:54:18 PM by Greenmantle

Okay, custom ordered parts are a no go. But why is it so bad to build an externally-accurate replica from scratch?

Because that's also expensive. And more difficult than you might think.

You'd practically be building the actual plane/tank/obscure cuddly WW 1 jeep or whatever.