what rifle in movie "Behind Enemy lines"?

J

johnAK

New member
what's the rifle in the movie "behind enemy lines" yugo sniper is using? it's not a dragunov, right?
this is real good, lots of modern rifles, but why yugo sniper was standing position when he first shoot to downed pilot? everyone knows standing position is not for sniper type shooting, LOL
 
The rifle was a SIG SSG 3000. And I don't know why he was standing. The movie should have been over when he got that first shot at him on top of the concrete slide.
 
I know when I'M stalking a downed pilot all over bosnia, I like to wear an addidas track suit. :rolleyes:
 
Did you notice all of the Czech hardware in that movie? Addidas boy had a CZ-75, the muslim commander character held a CZ-52 up to the RIO's head, and several Bosnians carried Vz-58s instead of AKs!
 
I saw the movie and liked it. There has to be a logical reason why that guy was wearing an addidas track suit. What is it? Anyone? Cool rifle.
Also, cool segment with the SAMs chasing the F18.

Dave
 
Ok, I'm new, so maybe I'm way off base, but the Adidas thing is irrelevant to the larger issue of CIVILIAN clothing.

The Serb sniper had to wear that Adidas tracksuit because the Serb forces had to have plausible deniability to international organizations, etc when they committed war crimes. That's why the uniformed troops left before Mr. Adidas shot the American pilot(named Jeremy Stackhouse, JERRY Stackhouse NBA star, anyone?!)

So the cloak of deniability is lent by the man in civilian clothes, despite his direct accountability to the Serb commander.

We shall ignore for a moment the constant barrage of anti-Serb propaganda, while Muslims videotape the beheading of Russian POWs and Serb civilians.
 
I hated that SAM scene in the beginning. Rocket motors only burn for ten or twenty seconds and the missiles go lots faster than a F18. It should have been over in a few seconds, either way.

Where was their air cover at the end? F/A 18s, Tomcats, and Cobras should have been loitering. Defense in depth and all...

Mr Addidas was a "special" trooper. "Special" in the sense that he'd do things that guys in uniforms probably wouldn't.

Yeah, lots of anti-Serb stuff. Nothing like being beat over the head with a point.

Anybody ever read, "My war gone by, how I miss it so"?
 
No

But my late father was famous for saying "At least no one's shooting at me" as a response to my mother's complaints about lack of effort on his part.
 
Argh, ok yeah the SAM thing bothered me as well. Not only are the burn times too long (WAY to long) but also the speed. The reaction time, does anyone else think that the reaction time was just a tad to fast? Not sure, which SAM type it is, but all SAM's are faster than an F/A-18F (only high mach 1's). Plus, I am sorry, but NO one could think of dropping fuel tanks that fast and pull it off. Oh yeah, and hitting the wing! Sure, if a SAM hit the Hornet's wing, it COULD NOT turn back around! Simple as that, the wing would tear off the control fins and that would be the end of that.
I assume, in a forum like this, everyone can see that there is not a chance that he would live in the end scene. Oh yeah, the mine scene, what?! He would have so many holes in him, argh... And when the dude with the civie jacket turns away from his comrade, he doesn't even look where he is going! Yeah sure, this guy steps on a mine, and the other guy doesn't even though he has no idea what he is stepping on. The Bipod! Argh!!!!! Leaving your buddy (our hero does) in the middle of a pasture when you have been shot down is down right criminal. He should be court Marshaled just for that! okay, I am done now.

Yours in Christ,


Andrew
 
Last edited:
Dude, it's a movie, and as we all know, the ultimate goal of movies is to make money. They do this by LOOKING COOL, and often making the movie completely accurate to real life doesn't help with that. They embellished all those scenes to make the movie look cool, so you'd walk out of the theater saying "damn that movie was cool", and I think they did a fine job with it. I for one think that unless the purpose of a movie is to be a factual representation of events, that you shouldn't complain about inaccuracies in it. But that's just me.
 
Okay, I haven't seen the movie yet, so I'm just curious in light of some of the comments so far. Is the plot patterned after the Scott O'Grady shoot-down over Bosnia, in terms of the particular "adversities" he actually encountered? Or is it all typical Hollyweird fiction?

I caught part of an interview that the networks did not long ago where O'Grady was commenting on the airstrikes over Afghanistan. First time I'd seen/heard about him in years. Just wondering ...
 
It was vaguely O'Grady-like. 2 seater F-18, so there's a fair change there. Accidentally took pictures of gravesites while deviating from approved course. It would have been better had he retrieved the hard disk earlier and later realized what it contained. Going back to the ejection seat was pretty silly.

Yeah, I think I saw about a dozen tracers stop in the the RIO's back in that last scene.
 
Appeach,

The reason you will read a lot of criticism here on the movies we see is the same reason we criticize the articles we read in the press and news stories we see on the tube. The inaccuracies feed all kinds of stereotypes and train the public to believe things that simply aren't true. Like an F-18 in a race with a SAM (think of a SAM as a bullet under acceleration). Like a SAM two seconds away from impact, but the plot slows down for a ten second decision process in the cockpit. Like a 1911 that doesn't lock back on the last round or goes "click" with the hammer down. Like portraying all gun owners as ignorant, selfish rednecks or portraying all sidearms as "weapons of war." Like blurring the distinction between semiauto and full auto. Like labeling people and things to suit, not only a Hollywood production, but a political agenda. Misrepresented facts in Hollywood productions find themselves into the next conversation you have with an anti, usually because it's the only version they've heard. Hollywood has a much bigger audience than even TFL. BTW, ever seen a Hollywood actor testify before congress on a subject they are passionate about, but know nothing?

'Not trying to rant back at you, but they could make the movie "look cool" and not play with facts and physics.
 
yes, for the masses, I think I've read article about how TV producers make target audiences, they make program assumes "middle school grad" is the audiences, :confused:
 
im a middle school grad, im a freshamn in highschool, and you are abosolutly correct, while i am out hunting, and reading gun mags, the kids in my grade are at movies almost every night! its radicalus!
 
im a middle school grad, im a freshamn in highschool, and you are abosolutly correct, while i am out hunting, and reading gun mags, the kids in my grade are at movies almost every night! its radicalus!
Click to expand...


Not only are the liberal government schools filling our youth's heads with all kinds of crap, they are not teaching them the three R's. Perhaps they could especially spend a little more time on spelling, punctuation, and capitalization. :rolleyes:

David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top