 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Why are the bad guys such lousy shots? posted by Rod M on October 08, 2002 at 14:14:56:
Because in real life, people (even trained people) are lousy shots. Adreneline gets going, nerves are frayed and when the other guys are shooting back bodily functions can let loose. Remember Amadu Dialo in NYC. The cops shot at him innumerable times and hit him very (and I do mean VERY) few. And virtually no one but a trained sniper can hit a moving target at night. There are examples of this in every battle you can name. People who lay down covering fire almost always shoot high. Gun fights in the "Olde West" seldom took place (usually it was a rifle or shotgun from behind) but when they did the antagonists were at most 3-4 feet apart not 20 feet (and they still missed often.)Duelists were probably better shots at 20 paces than anyone (especially considering the weaponry) even so, both parties often escaped without injury unless reloads were allowed. And when someone was shot in the first round it the victor was the normally the guy who shot second and was already missed by his opponent. It be much easier to shoot at an unarmed man who is standing stock still.
The movies get it right, but for the wrong reasons (i.e. "movie excitement").
Follow Ups:
It was dark and he was dark skinned with dark clothes.I trained with Marines in when I was stationed in Scotland and they are all VERY good shots. I myself have hit fleeing deer with the first shot fired on occasion.
Now of course in combat when you are being fired on, it is much different, as you say. But I still contend that Hollywood really does inflate the shots-fired-to-shots-home ratio quite a bit, especially when it comes to the bad guys.
Rob
"It was dark and he was dark skinned with dark clothes."He was standing under a light (small, but a light), in a small vestibule, was silhouetted against a lighter colour and did not move except to turn around in place (so much for people being thrown against a wall by pistol shots . . .that's one place movies REALLY get it wrong!).
He was hit right away, after that the officers thought they were being fired upon (their own ricochets) and they missed by as much as 10'.
It actually makes my point rather well instead of calling it into question.
For combat that is an excellent result.
"Now of course in combat when you are being fired on, it is much different, as you say." I have seen the best shot in a company unable to hit the broad side of a barn (from the inside) when the "bees" were whizzing past his ears.I was in Angola occasionally, and (trust me) 1 out of an hundred was a good result.
Training is not a firefight, nor is paintball! Nor is the cinema.
Cheers!
My father-in-law was involved in over a half-dozen fire fights in Vietnam. He was never struck by a bullet (he was superficially wounded by shrapnel from a mine blast that killed his patrol mate). He is pretty sure he was responisble for 4 enemy kills via his AR-15(the carbine or "light" version of the M-16). The policy in his detachment was controlled single or bust fire, with a heavy emphasis on conservation of rounds. He says he rarely shot blind, only at sighted targets. The SOP upon encountering hostile fire was to immediately lay supressing fire with the M-60's in return. Consequntly most of the rounds spent and most of the confirmed kils came by way of these M-60 gunners. He and the other riflemen would more or less pick off any enemy that would try to advance in the 'quiet' times between the large scale exchanges. This is they way most of the firefights went (This was small scale jungle patrol, so he never encountered large numbers of the enemy). All that said I am sure a helluva lot of rounds were fired to mount up the few dozen kills he was party to. But they did kill far more enemy troops then they themselves lost (7 men total, 3 to mines). This could only be because they were better trained and better marksmen. Lord knows it wasn't familiarity with the terrain or the element of surpise.My point is that films greatly exagerate this condtion in both directions. 5 bad guys shooting at the hero can't touch him with 200 rounds and he eliminates all five with two clips (you only see one token clip change in a fire fight). This is not reality.
Thanks,
Rob
"My point is that films greatly exagerate this condtion in both directions. 5 bad guys shooting at the hero can't touch him with 200 rounds . . ." slight exageration to great exageration depending on how much the bad guys possess the four "virtues" below.
". . . and he eliminates all five with two clips (you only see one token clip change in a fire fight). This is not reality." Great exageration, except see below . . .I was once escorted in Angola by a group who were:
1. Very efficient in firefights
2. very experienced in firefights
3. enjoyed firefights
4. had no moral compunction about/enjoyed killing the enemy (but only professionally so, not maniacally so).
(I actually believe that people really good in this arena possess all 4 attributes. They might not make good neighbors but come in really handy in a dark alley.)The comparison of my escorts' kill rate to that of the ordinary "citizen-soldiers" who opposed them was a joke. However, the one time my escorts were confronted by a group of similar skill, their kill rate went down as well. Let us just say that we and the other guys organised a "structured withdrawal". Even in that engagement (it was an ambush) there were over 50 rounds going past my ears that missed me. The firefight was at night, and as you (or your father) probably know, unless one is moonlight trained one aims too high at night (except for a skilled sniper with a night vision scope.)
The thing that frosts me most in action films is the way they got the details of military operation and protocol wrong, the effects of explosions, yada, yada.
The Marines (US) I trained with (Nuclear Weapons Security Detachment) as well as the SBS (UK) guys I got to observe showed me first hand that the Brits/Aussie/Yank/Kanooks really know how to train their troops and this shows in most 20th century conflicts.I know what you mean about militaty accuracy in films. Prior to Crimson Tide, the most technically accurate submarine film was Operation Pettycoat. Crimson Tide changed that however and was dead on as far as the sets were configured and especially the 'jargon' that was used. The missle commands that were batted back and forth were the real thing. My guess is that since this film was made post cold war, many of these commands have been declassified.
Thanks,
Rob
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
