Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/5/2002 5:24:18 AM EDT
Just rented the DVD last night....Not a bad movie...


Is this really based on a true story???

If so I hope that it was embelished....sure makes the NATO guy out to be an idiot.


Anyway to the firearm point....

What SNIPER rifle did the "tracker" use? It looked like it had a mannlicher mag.

Also....why did he NEVER use the bipod when shooting?? Did he just like the looks of it? Or the extra weight?
Link Posted: 5/5/2002 5:33:56 AM EDT
Pretty intense movie.
I don't know about the rifle, but the daytime movement certainly goes against the basics of E&E training. I guess its tough to film in the dark.

The movie also showed why US forces should not be under NATO, or any other foreign command.
Link Posted: 5/5/2002 5:39:07 AM EDT
Thats why I want to know if it was real or imaginary....

Or do you want to base American Foreign Policy on Movies like anti gunners base firearm policy??


Currently there are 850 Canadian soldiers in Afganistan under American Command.....so far it has cost us 4 dead due to incompetence on the American end. Are you saying that we should pull our troops out?

As I type this a force of over 85% Canadians is on top of some god forsaken mountain top in an operation commanded by an American.......Do you think that this is WRONG??

Link Posted: 5/5/2002 5:45:36 AM EDT
The book, War of the Rats, was much better.

The Russian character was based on a real person.
Link Posted: 5/5/2002 6:00:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/5/2002 6:00:34 AM EDT by gunman0]

Originally Posted By Stormbringer:
Thats why I want to know if it was real or imaginary....

Or do you want to base American Foreign Policy on Movies like anti gunners base firearm policy??


Currently there are 850 Canadian soldiers in Afganistan under American Command.....so far it has cost us 4 dead due to incompetence on the American end. Are you saying that we should pull our troops out?

As I type this a force of over 85% Canadians is on top of some god forsaken mountain top in an operation commanded by an American.......Do you think that this is WRONG??




That is not the same thing as being controlled by the UN. A Canadian officer traditionally is in charge of NORAD, and thus the safety of the entire US. No big deal. Americans have been under british command before, and had no real problem. UN control is different.

The UN is a large body controlled by many nations, including some which are not so friendly to the US as well as some nations completely uninvolved with the current situation. No country should want their troops commanded by their enemies, or someone with no stake in the battle.
Link Posted: 5/5/2002 6:15:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/5/2002 6:37:34 AM EDT by Stormbringer]
Gunman the discussion revolves around NATO...not NORAD nor the UN..


Interestingly enough....plenty of discussion is going on here in Canada around the American North American Defensive Zone. Some think that it will mean the end of Canadian Soverignty.......

It appears that our "permission" is not really all that valued by the Americans....Remember that to defend the USA means to do it in the Skies of Canada.....

I for one happen to agree with the concept. As a matter of fact I think that it is just a matter of time before the USA and Canada are joined as a single political entity....Mexico........wellll??????
Link Posted: 5/5/2002 6:46:02 AM EDT
Well, the simple fact it that any NBC attack on the US Mainland is going fly over Canada on the way here since that is the shortest distance.

It is to Canada's advantage to combine defenses, unless Canadians totally trust the accuracy/reliability of Russian, Chinese, N. Korean, Iraqi, etc... planes and ballistic missiles.

It is an unfortunate consequence of being our neighbor. The "war on terror" factors into this too. If terrorists decide it is too hard to seize an aircraft in the US anymore, they might do so in Canada, and fly a short distance over the border and crash.

It is all part of the changing world, in the armageddon type US/Russia WW3 scenario not much of this mattered. Defense systems in Canada were just radar sites to let us know of the attack in enough time to launch our return strike of missles. There was no real worry of stopping a single missle/aircraft or two. The thought was that it would be thousands, and no point in any defensive capabilities. Just launch our missles and call it a day.

In todays world, we need to try to stop those few planes/missles because it is not only possible with only a few targets, but necessary since it is actually possible to plan the country's survival after the attack.

It is understandable the US should pay most of the costs for any systems, and retain most of the control of the system since Canada is really only in the entire situation due to their location. For eample, if Canada was in South America, none of this would be necessary. Our nation feels an obligation not only to defend ourselves, but to defend Canada from attack since any attack is most likely really aimed at us.

I guess this is how I look at the situation, Canadians might see it differently, but differences will be worked out over time due to the simple fact, it has to happen for both our nations survival.
Link Posted: 5/5/2002 6:54:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/5/2002 6:55:38 AM EDT by guns762]
Before this whole European union thing started getting so close to a reality, I would have said absolutely no way of one North American entity, but now, ......I hope not. Nothing derogatory directed towards our Canadian Brothers, Stormbringer. I still say that there is way too much resentment of the U.S. up in Canada, for them ever to want to become one political entity with the U.S. Maybe I'm wrong. You can find the same resentment in the U.S. and in Mexico.
Link Posted: 5/5/2002 6:56:19 AM EDT
Oh I know what you mean 7.62

That is just to balance the Smug American Attitude....

Its called Balance.....
Link Posted: 5/5/2002 6:57:17 AM EDT
The comment I made about NORAD was just to show how the US trusts its national security to Canada.

NATO is not in command of Canadian soldiers. An American General commanded by the US administration is in charge of them. Unlike troops under UN command, there is no massive voting body of allies,enemies,and nobodies commanding the Canadian troops.

NATO is a treaty organization not a psuedo governing body. Thus when NATO invoked article 5, each nation on its own decided what they would contribute to the war no matter what the US requested. When troops are commited, each nation decides if they want to put them under the other nations' command. If the US attacks Iraq and most of the other nations in NATO decides not to support the action, all they can do is withdraw their own troops, not(by majority vote) order a withdwawal of all NATO troops.

In a UN action, if a majority decide to order troops in or out of a another area in a conflict, it happens even if the soldiers' own nation does not support the action.
Link Posted: 5/5/2002 7:01:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/5/2002 7:09:59 AM EDT by AC_Doctor]
The sniper was carrying a Sako TRG 42. Possible rifle calibers include: .308, .300 Win-Mag and .338 Lapua.



Link Posted: 5/5/2002 7:02:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/5/2002 7:07:46 AM EDT by FMJunkie]

Originally Posted By Stormbringer:
Anyway to the firearm point....

What SNIPER rifle did the "tracker" use? It looked like it had a mannlicher mag.

Also....why did he NEVER use the bipod when shooting?? Did he just like the looks of it? Or the extra weight?



I bought the DVD, it is an enternaining watch.

To answer your question, though:

Its a SIG Sauer SSG3000 in .308.

www.sigarms.com/le-military/sauer-ssg3000.asp
www.sigarms.com/products/sauer-ssg3000.asp

I was actually pleased to never see him employ the bipod. He was on the move in varying terrain and I probably wouldn't have stopped to unfold & extend it either. It also showed the benefit/need for training to shoot from less than ideal situations, IMHO.
Link Posted: 5/5/2002 7:03:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AC_Doctor:
The sniper was carrying a Sako TRG 42.




I'll have to pop in the DVD and check but, I'm pretty sure that's not the rifle.
Link Posted: 5/5/2002 7:03:37 AM EDT
On the combined North American nations idea, I say no way. Politically the US, Canada, and Mexico(?) are too different. And joining serperate nations economies in not much better. The Euro is going to eventually cause a major problem in europe. I mean the idea that Italy is joined in the economic entity is scary. It was what, about 10 trillion Lire to the Dollar? Obviosly, not all nations manage inflation, or other economic policies, correctly. Combining their economies was a really bad idea.
Link Posted: 5/5/2002 7:11:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/5/2002 7:12:28 AM EDT by Stormbringer]
Well that being the case.....I forsee an armed attack against Canada by the Americans..

You know that there are massive underground bases in New York State filled with massive amounts of troops training for attacks on Canada. Rumour has it that they are even learning to speak Canadian!!!!


The USA needs Canadas resources....they will either get them by trade or they will try to take them from us.....

Hmmm better stock up on my 5.56!


Oh its NOT the Sako.....

The SIG looks possible

Link Posted: 5/5/2002 7:12:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/5/2002 7:30:49 AM EDT by AC_Doctor]
This was the first time I have even been wrong.....(NOT) !!!!! The Sako TRG still looks cooler than the SIG.....The rifle was a SIGARMS
ssg3000, here is a pic. The big giveaways were the buttstock, hooked vs non-hooked, and the differences in the muzzle brakes.


Link Posted: 5/5/2002 7:23:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/5/2002 7:24:11 AM EDT by Stormbringer]
I just did a freeze frame off the DVD...

Its a SIG SSG3000 for certain.

Well I am off to the hospital to see how the Mrs is faring....


Ciao...

Oh Please do not take over Canada till she gets out of the hospital......I would not have to pay for it!!!

Edited to add that the feature I noted was the magazine area which looked like a Mannlicher
Link Posted: 5/5/2002 7:40:54 AM EDT
I will say that I thought the movie overall was pretty good, but the whole battle at the end was way past ridiculous IMO.
Link Posted: 5/5/2002 7:41:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By gunman0:
..... The Euro is going to eventually cause a major problem in europe.

I mean the idea that Italy is joined in the economic entity is scary. It was what, about 10 trillion Lire to the Dollar



You're on the wrong way my friend.......

Have you never been in Italy ?

No ? ...I'm sorry to hear that.....

Well,I live here since 40 years ago and I also know your country really very well , been there abt 20 times in the last 12 years for business & vacations , and I say :

You're on the wrong way......

Before to talk and to judge you have to realize what's the reality with your eyes.

No flame.

ciao,

PP out

PS: The rifle is a SIG3000 and that movie , even if it's nice , it's stupid , impossible & unreal.
Link Posted: 5/5/2002 7:46:38 AM EDT
It was loosely based on the true-life experience of CPT. Scott O'Grady, USAF. He was shot down by a missile over Bosnia (in '95, I believe) and remained undetected and uncaptured for five or six days. The USMC pulled him out with Cobra gunships and a HH-53 (I think). The real-life stuff is incredible, because it actually happened. He wrote the book "Behind Enemy Lines" which was adapted for the movie.
Link Posted: 5/5/2002 7:55:41 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/5/2002 8:01:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PincoPalla:
You're on the wrong way my friend.......

Have you never been in Italy ?

No ? ...I'm sorry to hear that.....

Well,I live here since 40 years ago and I also know your country really very well , been there abt 20 times in the last 12 years for business & vacations , and I say :

You're on the wrong way......

Before to talk and to judge you have to realize what's the reality with your eyes.

No flame.



I did not intend my statement to be taken as anything against Italy(and no I have never been to Italy). I just happened to pick Italy as a EU country at random. Every European country(as well as the US and every other country on this planet) has had huge economic problems in the past and will again in the future.

Now, I may be wrong here, but I am under the impression the Euro was created to ease trade and travel by not requiring complicated exchange rates throughout Europe, which is a nice idea. But, what I forsee is that a EU country, lets say France this time, is eventually going to have massive internal economic and political problems similar to Argentina(nothing against Argentina if you read this hunter, just picked it as a nation currently having economic problems in the news) it could start to seriously damage the other EU countries economies. Does the EU kick France out; do other EU nations try to leave the EU(wars are usually caused by leaving such unions); or is there some solution to the problem I am not seeing?
Link Posted: 5/5/2002 8:22:24 AM EDT
All in all, I thought the battle scenes in the movie to be pretty silly. I mean, after they got shot down and ejected, the pilot sat in the middle of a big open field after falling through the air with a big red, white, and blue parachute (do they really use these?). I know he was wounded, but wouldn't it be smart to, oh I don't know, try to get some cover?

Then, the sniper guy takes his first shot at the navigator with that fancy sig 3000 from an unsupported position. He should have saved a few bucks and got a Savage, and learned how to use something as a rest. Running through the explosives field, it seems like flames and debris were completely engulfing the navigator guy, yet apparently all the shrapnel happened to miss him... The end battle, I don't think I even need to comment on that...

Rocko
Link Posted: 5/5/2002 9:09:45 AM EDT
The threat of the "invasion" of Canada by the US is the exact reason there is a Canada today. Canada was basically a French and English held territories. The end of the Civil War in the US changed all of that. The Canadians, seeing a fully mobilized (and battle hardened) Union Army (and a lot of Confederate vets, too), feared that the US just might decide to march north and make it part of the US. So, next thing ya know, there was a marriage of the territories and voila! A new nation is born. Personally, lets leave Canada alone, with the descrepancy between the US and Canadian dollar, I just love shopping on-line with Canadian merchants. Talk about getting stuff cheap!!!
Link Posted: 5/5/2002 9:23:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JIMBEAM:
The book, War of the Rats, was much better.

The Russian character was based on a real person.



Sorry man wrong movie.
Link Posted: 5/5/2002 9:35:51 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/5/2002 9:57:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PincoPalla:
You're on the wrong way my friend.......

Have you never been in Italy ?

No ? ...I'm sorry to hear that.....

Well,I live here since 40 years ago and I also know your country really very well , been there abt 20 times in the last 12 years for business & vacations , and I say :

You're on the wrong way......

Before to talk and to judge you have to realize what's the reality with your eyes.



As one of Italian descent, Pinco, I mean no disrespect either, but since the war the Italian government and it's... lets say, government of the month club... has been one of the biggest jokes in the world.

Italy is great but it's the people and their ingenuity and work ethic. With so many governments since the war it's amazing that any helpful policies could come to fruition. Proportional representation is neat in theory but lousy in practice: Endless compromises and gridlock (as such the people don't really get much help from the government, in light of the constant turmoil and reversals what they enjoy is in spite of the politicians...)


PS: The rifle is a SIG3000 and that movie , even if it's nice , it's stupid , impossible & unreal.


Correct on all counts. As I said here when the movie came out. I find myself going to films in the genre simply to look at the hardware, they are all so fantastically contrived these days.
Link Posted: 5/5/2002 9:59:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:
The real-life stuff is incredible, because it actually happened. He wrote the book "Behind Enemy Lines" which was adapted for the movie.



Adapted is an understatement. It bears only the most superficial resemblence.
Link Posted: 5/5/2002 10:59:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By shooter69:...... but since the war the Italian government and it's... lets say, government of the month club... has been one of the biggest jokes in the world.
.....Italy is great but it's the people and their ingenuity and work ethic.....



Unfortunately I've to agree with you , let's hope we'll be able to change that sad situation.

PP out
Link Posted: 5/5/2002 11:23:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/5/2002 11:25:13 PM EDT by PincoPalla]

Originally Posted By gunman0: ...Every European country(as well as the US and every other country on this planet) has had huge economic problems in the past and will again in the future.......


I can't say you're wrong , we have huge economic troubles here in Europe but , at the same time , we cannot forget to say that the IIIrd,the IVth , the Vth and the VIth most powerful ,economically specking , nations in the world are in Europe.

I see a lot of other countries on the face of the earth that have more poverty and economic troubles than us .

Anyway let's hope for the best for our people and also, why not , for the rest of the world .

Ciao,
PP out
Link Posted: 5/7/2002 10:08:07 AM EDT
I agree. The rifle in the movie is the Sig SSG3000.

Link Posted: 5/8/2002 10:02:49 PM EDT
Man I can't believe the replies to this post got all the way down to Rocko before somebody said ANYTHING about how hokie this movie was. Unfortunately, they are conditioning most people to think this kind of crap is block-buster material. As long as you know that the movie is un-realistic before you watch it, then it should be tolerable.
Link Posted: 5/8/2002 10:25:13 PM EDT
Darnitall, I would have sworn it was an Accuracy International, but yeah I believe it's the SIG
Top Top