7.62×54mm ammunition ricocheting off of thin sheet metal, HMMWVs, etc?
.50 cal Browning M2HB and RPG fail to penetrate the corner of a decrepit building?
Rangers shooting at a massive horde of hostiles about 50 yards away and hitting nothing?
Rangers not manning a weapon when ordered to forcing a Delta operative to do it for them?
These things seem very unrealistic to me.
On the audio commentary of the film from four of the men who actually participated in the raid, they said for the most part the film is accurate as to its depiction. With the rare exception of a few of the men having been assigned different names such as Eric Bana's character of Hoot Gibson (replacing the real life John Maceunas who was still on active duty when the film was made) and Cribbs who was played by Steven Ford as a stand in for the real life Lee Van Arsdale who again was still on active duty when the film was made, the film is accurate. The four men who were on the commentary were Danny McKnight (played by Tom Sizemore), Matt Eversmann (played by Josh Hartnett), Lee Van Arsdale (aformentioned Steve Ford as Cribbs), and Tom Matthews (played by Glen Moreshower). Also on the three disc set, there is a middle disc that goes into how the actors prepared to play their characters by going to the actual boot camp at Fort Benning where the actual Army Rangers train. The actors playing Delta Operatives like Eric Bana, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau (Gary Gordon one of the Delta operatives whose body was dragged through the streets of "The Mog"), Johnny Strong (Randy Shughart another of the Delta operatives whose body was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu), and William Fichtner (Jeff Sanderson who was holed up at the first crash site), all went to Delta training camp also through Fort Benning, as well as the 160th SOAR (Night Stalkers) Black Hawks and Little Birds for actors Ron Eldard who played Mike Durant (the pilot that was taken POW) and Jeremy Piven who played Cliff Elvis Wolcott the first pilot whose Black Hawk went down and died.
On the third disc in the set there are three documentaries on the actual raid and those who took part as technical consultants for the film as well as many others who took part in the actual raid.
You are talking about historical accuracy. I specifically stated my gripe is not with that.
I am questioning the physical accuracy.
High-velocity rounds have a lot of penetrating power. They can easily penetrate 1/4-1/2 inch steel plate https://youtu.be/YBxqFjYXOGw?t=271
In the film you see rounds bouncing off of thin sheet metal(a few mm thick) and HMMWVs. Not likely.
You also see the far edge of the corner of an old rickety Mogadishu building absorb .50 cal rounds and an RPG7 strike with zero penetration. The soldier mere inches away is left unscathed. Even an AK will penetrate material like that https://youtu.be/0ZbOiQGxF5M?t=115 let alone a .50 cal https://youtu.be/QsgwcDOGJQY?t=68 and an RPG would cut through it like paper https://youtu.be/_J-uKNb6TaI?t=78
I also find it highly unlikely that the Rangers were incapable of hitting the broad side of a barn as shown when they fire into a massive horde of hostiles and hit nothing. It would be harder not to hit them.
Finally, the fact that the Rangers were too scared to man the .50 in the HMMWV forcing Delta to do it seems far fetched and makes the Rangers look like pussies, which they are most certainly not. I can only assume this was done to heighten tension in the film. It made me roll my eyes.
Historical accuracy is quite good, but physical accuracy is abysmal.
Well don't argue with me. I'm only telling you what those who went through the actual battle said. Van Arsdale, Matthews, Eversmann, and McKnight all said the movie was a realistic depiction of what they went through that day. So if you want to question it, question them. Hear it from the horse's mouth:
Army Ranger Jeff Strueker discusses accuracy of movie Black Hawk Down
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s8EvBHaMLI
Jeff Strueker in the film was played by actor Brian Van Holt. Argue with him about it.
Is this one of the scenes in question?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Mgf3xEOYCts
In this scene there would have to be a serious iron I-beam or a massive stone pillar on the corner behind the corrugated sheet metal for .50 cal rounds not to pass straight through. For that matter, even 5.56 or 7.62 would cut it like butter. I guess the question would be what’s holding that corner up behind the sheet metal but you could almost bet nothing too substantial.
Edit: I just went back and paused it and the corner looks like it’s supported by a wooden 4x4 post.
You have to remember, they filmed the MOVIE in Morocco. The buildings were far more ramshackle in Mogadishu, but for the most part the Rangers, D-Boys and pilots all said the film was as authentic as one could get without inserting the actors into the real battle. And that's all I'm willing to say on this.
shareThat is a good example of concealment being presented as cover. Those .50 cal rounds would have torn through that sheet metal and wounded/killed that soldier. Also, if you pay attention to the scene you linked when Grimes uses the underslung grenade launcher he misses by an impossible margin given where his gun was pointed.
However, I was more referring to this scene( https://youtu.be/EwzVOlFdH0o?t=225 ).
Those .50 cal rounds and rpg would have at least wounded that soldier, but most likely killed him.
You got that right.
shareThat says nothing about realism, only historical accuracy. Nothing you have presented even suggests the physics were realistic. It is stated that "if it were any more accurate it would be a documentary", which means it was indeed lacking in at least some authenticity.
Show me something that says the projectile physics were realistic. I have $1000 that says it doesn't exist because it wasn't realistic.
Why would I argue with someone who never made any mention of what I am calling into question? I am arguing with you because you are presenting erroneous information in an attempt to rebut my gripe.
Furthermore, even if someone with the apt credentials did say the projectile physics shown in the film was realistic, there are plenty of legit experiments(some of which I previously linked) proving that they were not realistic.
I'll let Richard Feynman briefly explain https://youtu.be/LIxvQMhttq4?t=49
Unless you can show some sort of evidence or experiment that the projectile physics were realistic which also proves previously linked experiments as flawed, you have absolutely nothing to stand on, and I am unsure why you are even chiming in. Especially since you don't want anyone to argue with your dubious assertions made without any relevant evidence.
Malcontent.
share