Just saw Rules Of Engagement

easyday

Inactive
Interesting flick. It depicts 20 or so U.S Marines sent to the Yemen Embassy to evauate
the U.S Ambassador and family. They took positions on the embaassy roof. They quickly began taking heavy small arms fire from adjacent roof tops and bad guys dispersed
in a volatile crowd of demonstrators on the embassy plaza. After taking a couple KIAs
and several wounded they were ordered to open fire on the plaza demonstrators.
80 demos.dead 200 wounded. Don`t want to give any more of the movie away. Where do you think the deadliest threat was from? The plaza or roof tops? You will have to see the movie for yourself and decide.



[This message has been edited by easyday (edited April 12, 2000).]
 
Probably from the rooftop snipers. When they first showed the Marines open up on the crowd, I said, "there's no way Marines would do that." I still think that they would light up the guys on adjacent roofs, then turn their attention to the crowd. Pretty decent weapons handling.
 
I just saw clips and couldn't figure out that they would open up on a crowd. Hunker down and take out the snipers one at a time. It looked to me like they had cover and the crowd was not a threat to overrun them at that time. But I have NOT seen the show so may be wrong on the situation.
 
Sounds like kind of a play on the situation Somolia as described in Blackhawk Down.
If the crowed is willingly shading the gunmen, then they are no longer innocent bystanders - thus they are valid targets.
Just a thought...



------------------
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
 
I consider the rooftop shooters a greater threat. Ground fire won't reach you if you're back from the parapet.

Did anyone else notice the mistake with the M16s in the Vietnam sequence of the movie? The lowers all had the later M16A2 magazine release fence.
 
folks, not to give the movie away, but I do have to bring up a point in story telling and editing. The movie did show a valid reason to open fire on the crowd, LATE in the story. If you see the first half of the movie, you'd be convinced that the prosecution had a very good case. Like this convinces the audience to hold a degree of doubt on the main characters. Bah!

The movie makers should have just gone ahead and showed us that the main character was without blame and proceed to show how he and his buddy win their way out of a tight spot. The movie will be just as satisfying.

I wondered why the helicopter gunner did not bother to take out the snipers. The marines did not try to take out the snipers during or after taking up position. Oh yeah! The snipers had women and children standing right next to them. A planned human shield. Hmmm, calls for snipers of our own, too.

best to all.
Yenyin
 
I just saw this movie as well - pretty good flick. But, I've gotta ask a question of those who have had infantry experience.

It made no sense to me at all that the Marines would take those kinds of casualties without working to take out the 'snipers'. The snipers looked to be using AK's, with iron sights. I find it incredible that Marines wouldn't neutralize that threat, and it appeared they could have done so even with the civilians nearby on the rooftop. I thought the same about the door gunners - it appeared they had a good perspective on the snipers.

But, I'm a civilian, with no military training. Am I simply naive, or was this the significant flaw I perceived it to be?

Thanks. Regards from AZ
 
I think the snipers were the primary threat. The Marines taking fire while choppering in should have been the eye-opener ref the snipers. So yeah I would have engaged to the point that I was not placing myself at greater risk from the crowd.

But like George pointed out, in MOUT situations things can go to sh*t pretty easily, and rounds can come from anywhere.

Great Movie. Try seeing it with a (liberal) college crowd. Seems most did not realize that bad things happen in wars. Imagine that.

Gator
 
biggrin.gif
airheads
biggrin.gif
 
I saw the movie and would have to say it was pretty good, besides the jungle scenes where there were 20 or 30 marines grouped in an area about 30 by 30 feet----never been to war but I would think thats a little too bunched up!?

As for who posed a greater threat, I would say the snipers first. But even if they were taken out, a crowd that size could pose a definite threat to those marines. Nothing would scare me more than 500 foreigners who want to kill Americans on their soil.

My 2 cents

[This message has been edited by KP95OKC (edited April 20, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by houndawg:
Where are they going to get air support from? [/quote]

Since they were part of the MEU, they should have sent a couple of AV-8B Harriers or even some AH-1 Cobras.
 
The movie wasn't bad but it did have a number of problems. First off the MEU(SOC) Commander shouldn't have accompanied the rescue forces in. He should have been where he could best lead the entire MEU, not just the rescue units. This happened during the O'Grady rescue when the MEU CO took operational command of the TRAP team since it was the only show in town. If his helo got shot down the MEU would be fresh out of Colonels. Also it tells your NCO's and junior officers that you don't think they can handle a job themeselves. In reality the rescue force that actually reinforces the embassy would be a line company, not the TRAP team. The TRAP team, along w/ a Sparrow Hawk or Bald Eagle (reactionary Plt. or Co. sized units), and some escorts (gunships) would be launched but they'd hold back incase everything went to sh!t. The rescue teams would also bring a bunch of empty helos since most NEO's require the evacuation of hundreds or thousands of personnel; most of the time US forces are required to evacuate other foreign nationals. When the rescue force arrived at the embassy they failed to secure the LZ. Helos on the ground are pretty vulnerable. The Marine Security Guards at the embassy hadn't attempted to disperse the crowd (They weren't wearing masks so I doubt they dispersed gas). From a security standpoint the building looked whoefully inadequate. The embassy was adjoining to other buildings, the windows weren't bullet/blast resistant, there were no bars, the doors looked flimsy, there was no hardline inside, and there were no prepared firing portals. MSG's almost never sit out on the roof since it's too exposed especially in an urban environment. Instead they use cameras and mirrors for observation and shoot from prepared positions. The ROE's were pretty ridiculous. I was both a grunt and a Marine Security Guard and we were told to use deadly force if we felt our life or somebody else's was in danger. This means we would have been authorized to engage people as soon as they sight in on us. I personally would have positioned most of my Marines inside the building on the upper decks then sent LP/OP's out only after the cameras were destroyed. I also would have engaged the shooters on the roof first since they had better angles on me. Even though cobra gunships would be involved in real NEO's they wouldn't be the best thing to use due to massive collateral damage. Third world countries have no architectural codes and most of the buildings are made of mud,cardboard, tin sheets, & sand. Weapons like SMAWS, MK19's, mortars, & gunships can accidently bring down entire buildings. Another major problem is that Tommy Lee Jones's squad just froze in the river when the first firefight broke out. They should have immediately gotten out of the danger area, found cover, and then decided on a course of action. There's probably a bunch I missed but this is what immediately came to mind. Oh yeah by the way they used the wrong helos (47's vs. 46's).



[This message has been edited by Keeper of the Keys (edited April 21, 2000).]
 
Keeper of the Keys, that is interesting stuff, but you need to cut us civvies some slack ... we don't necessarily understand all the acronyms.
wink.gif


I saw the beginning of the movie again last night (while waiting for another to begin) - one of the Marines clearly says the snipers are 100 meters away. I still can't believe they wouldn't have taken those guys out.

In an operation such as this, would a team normally have at least one guy with a well-scoped rifle for precise, longer shots?
 
I haven't seen the film yet. I just thought of a variance to this "show".

What if:

This were to occur on US soil, with the "hostages" being foreign types(UN possibly). Who would come in for the retreival and cleanup of this situation?

Consider that would be American citizens on the ground, very possibly some of them armed and firing. How do you think it would be handled???
Curiousity sometimes doesn't kill the cat.

Best Regards,
Don

------------------
The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
Adolf Hitler
 
I just saw the movie myself. It was OK, but I think the point was, by the time the order to return fire came, the rooftop snipers were no longer making themselves a target. I thought that while the crowd below kept the Marines heads down, the sniper's disappeared. When the order came, they shot the crowd that was shooting at them. The more important aspect of this movie, and a point that it was trying to make is that combat sucks. You don't always remember exactly what happened in the space of a few seconds. Your first priority is your men. Next, yourself, next, any other bystanders. If you get involved with an angry mob, and then get shot at when the defenders return fire, you deserve it for lack of judgement. I didn't ever (thank-god) have to endure such a stressful situation. In the PGW, we were mostly paid to vandalize military targets (quite possibly the most fun I've ever had), and to nurse EPW's back to health. If I were sitting on the jury, I wouldn't convict in this case. It is a lot like the 1SG Bryan case at Ft. Bragg after Panama. They were trying to hang him, but he did what he thought he had to do to protect his men. The one criticism I have about the proceedings is the MCM (manual for Courts martial) is pretty explicit in stating that you cannot be tried on multiple charges stemming from the same incident. They tried the guy on 3 different charges stemming from one incident.
 
Sorry, I'm kind of surprised at you all. I saw this flick and there was nothing to take seriously. I don't know of any operation of this type in recent years, INCLUDING Somalia, where Marines or other US forces aren't allowed to return incoming hostile fire. Period. REAL marines in this type of situation would almost certainly employ non-lethals (didn't), fire up "snipers" asap (didn't), and use aimed precision fire to take out shooters in crowd, not gun it down wholesale. Even more ludicrous was the supposition that TL Jones couldn't prove fire came from ground. All he had to do was stick a dowel in any of the myriad holes in the flagpose and walls till it stuck out of one at a 45 degree angle. End of case. Jeez, these liberals in Hollywood are weak. BTW, yes, i AM a pretty big pain in the ass to watch these movies with.
 
Back
Top