| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:Olympus Has Fallen: Difference between revisions
Spartan198 (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Why would an AC-130 have guns as small as M134s? IIRC, the 25mm GAU-12 is what current AC-130s carry after being upgraded from 20mm M61s, so it should be noted that such an ar...") |
Spartan198 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (47 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
This movie is gonna be awesome. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 21:20, 26 February 2013 (EST) | This movie is gonna be awesome. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 21:20, 26 February 2013 (EST) | ||
I think the AC-130 was meant to be 2 things, shock and awe and to eliminate the Secret Service snipers on the roof top, which would clear the entry teams going through the front door. Of course even if it was depicted with the GAU 12 guns...It would be just as overkill with the cannon if they used it. I don't know what the roof of the White House is armored with...but I doubt it could withstand anything from an AC-130. Also the movie expected us to believe that the White House's AAA defenses didn't activate the moment it detected something like an AC-130 coming at it? Honestly, the invasion of the White House in 24 was more realistic and less over the top. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01|talk]]) 21:25, 26 February 2013 (EST) | |||
Not saying an ACOG on in MP5 is impractical but...there's something odd about it, mostly that the MP5 lacks range, accuracy and punch of a rifle and they would be using it indoors for the assault on the White House...wouldn't it have been practical for all the MP5s to be equipped with zero magnifying optics like Aimpoints, Eotechs...an ACOG on an MP5 to me is just...weird. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01|talk]]) 21:28, 26 February 2013 (EST) | |||
:A similar setup was used by Jason Issacs in Green Zone. MP5A3 with an ACOG on top that had a magical nightvision mode that didn't require goggles. He used it for close-quarters street combat. --[[User:DeltaOne|DeltaOne]] ([[User talk:DeltaOne|talk]]) 00:38, 25 March 2013 (EDT) | |||
:I feel the same way but I remember seeing some early model MP-5s with the 4x Hendsolt scope which was/is a lot bulkier than the ACOG if memory serves. --[[User:Charon68|Charon68]] ([[User talk:Charon68|talk]]) 21:39, 26 February 2013 (EST) | |||
::True, then as the MP5 aged all the way to modern times, you rarely see it with a powered optic. Also be in mind that the Hendsolt scope was never designed for the MP5. Just because a weapon has a maximum range of X doesn't mean a powered optic will 100% guaranteed a hit at X range or would it be effective in a combat situation. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01|talk]]) 22:01, 26 February 2013 (EST) | |||
:::The British SAS used to sometimes mount Hensoldt Z-24 scopes on their MP5s, as did the British police. However I think this was partly due to the fact that red dot sights were not as far along as they are today, and also that compact carbines were not as prevelant as they are today which now fill the medium range roll that these scoped MP5s had. For example whereas the police used to have an MP5 with a 4x scope, you will now only see MP5s with an EOTech or other red dot sight, alongside G36Cs with either the ZF 3x4° carry handle or a Leupold 1-3x14mm CQ/T. These days if it is being used in a role where it would benefit from a powered optic, a compact carbine is generally the preferred choice. Particularly in the case of this film where they are going fighting in a building, the ACOG is an odd choice. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 07:21, 27 February 2013 (EST) | |||
:::An ACOG on an MP5 simply means said MP5 can be employed at its ''maximum effective range'', not at the optic's ''maximum viewing range''. It can also be used as a means of reconnoitering a distant location up close, such as bad guys' positions, before moving in closer. [http://www.abload.de/img/780049wsps5.jpg This guy], for example, wouldn't have the extra weight of an Elcan on his CQBR unless he had some use for the secondary magnification level. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 18:16, 25 March 2013 (EDT) | |||
::::That is a 5.56x45mm AR-15 rather than a 9x19mm MP5 though which has more range so benefits more from a magnified optic. Regardless, it is not so much just that there are ACOGs on MP5s, but the fact that they are using them for an operation which will be purely CQB inside a building where the longest range they will be shooting at is 10-20 meters. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 20:52, 25 March 2013 (EDT) | |||
:::::The idea is the same, though. Effective use of the weapon at its maximum range. Any magnified optical sighting system can see far beyond the max range of its host weapon, regardless of whether that weapon is an MP5 sub gun or an M68 cannon on an Abrams tank. Plus, an ACOG with an illuminated reticle (which is most models) can be used as a rudimentary CQB optic by looking through it with both eyes open and using the reticle as your point of aim. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 07:03, 3 May 2013 (EDT) | |||
Some of them do come in from the fence in the trailer and that would mean a bit of range to the building. --[[User:Iceman|Iceman]] ([[User talk:Iceman|talk]]) 10:57, 30 March 2013 (EDT) | |||
Why would a man with a rifle try to shoot at an AC-130? It just stands out. Also the reverse shot both bothered me in the trailer and interested me. Butler did a shoulder transition around corners, pretty smart. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01|talk]]) 13:06, 27 February 2013 (EST) | |||
I think the AC-130 we see might not be an actual AC-130, it might just be something that the North Koreans piece together from a C-130 so it can conceal the miniguns on board and pretend to be a regular C-130.--[[User:Wildcards|Wildcards]] ([[User talk:Wildcards|talk]]) 12:22, 19 March 2013 (EDT) | |||
:Plus if you notice on one of the previews, the AC-130 uses its gatling guns to engage a F-22 on its right side. AC-130s only have guns on the left hand side. --[[User:Insertjjs|Insertjjs]] | |||
I want to know what's coming out of those MP5s the terrorists are using cause they were going right through whatever the Secret Service guys were wearing. It's like the movie forgot that every agent wears a vest of some sort and 9mm won't go through them. And the ACOGs on MP5s still is weird to me. Almost as weird as ACOGs on P90s. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01|talk]]) 01:04, 23 March 2013 (EDT) | |||
I don't think it's supposed to be a legit AC-130. It's probably a modified C-130 by the North Koreans. That's why it had guns on the right and left side. Why the plane would have only miniguns is beyond me, but they are the North Koreans. What I want to know, is why are they so God Damn accurate? They were headshotting people left and right. Also why did it take so long for the military to respond? You would think that the U.S Military would be sending the most elite special forces to take back the White House. I was expecting Delta and DevGru on the roof in a matter of minutes. Oh well, guess I'm logical.--[[User:NJGunner|NJGunner]] ([[User talk:NJGunner|talk]]) 00:22, 30 March 2013 (EDT) | |||
:Delta and DevGru (What a dumb name) would take at least a day to show up, being based in Georgia and...I'm not sure where DevGru is. But you do have the Secret Service at the White House, Washington PD, the FBI headquarters, local SWAT, fighters out of Andrews and Langley AFBs, the Marine Barracks in DC, HMX-1, and all of Qunatico Marine Base. All of those would be able to respond faster. BTW, are the Norks trying to get control of our nukes or something? --[[User:Mandolin|Mandolin]] ([[User talk:Mandolin|talk]]) 14:53, 30 March 2013 (EDT) | |||
::Delta is based out of North Carolina and DEV is based out of Virginia Beach. --[[User:DeltaOne|DeltaOne]] ([[User talk:DeltaOne|talk]]) 17:05, 30 March 2013 (EDT) | |||
:Virginia Beach is roughly 3 hours and 20 minutes away by car. By helicopter, maybe like an hour an a half (accounting for speed and everything). One would think that a Tier one special forces unit would be the first choice for saving POTUS. Hell, Banning was a former Ranger and he single-handedly saved the President and killed a a quarter of a million terrorists. If one Ranger could do that, 4 DevGru operators could take it in a matter of minutes. Also during the initial assault, where did the RPGs come from? It's a little off track from what I was originally talking about but this pisses me off alot. I liked the movie, but there were alot of inaccuracies.--[[User:NJGunner|NJGunner]] ([[User talk:NJGunner|talk]]) 16:43, 1 April 2013 (EDT) | |||
::How is this comparing to White House Down?? --[[User:DeltaOne|DeltaOne]] ([[User talk:DeltaOne|talk]]) 22:50, 1 April 2013 (EDT) | |||
:::Similar concept. Terrorists invade the White House to capture/kill POTUS and it's up to one man to save him. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 18:53, 22 June 2013 (EDT) | |||
The AC-130 fires several showy series of flares when missiles are fired at it from the ground and air. Firing the flares is accompanied by loud thumping boom sound effects. Does firing flares really make that kind of sound? Countermeasure flares are just magnesium or something else burning really hot. Were the sound effects truthful or was the sound put in to make the scenes more showy? I've seen flares fired from a jet fighter but it was from a distance and the sound of the jet masked everything so I didn't hear if the flare firing makes a sound. [[User:Estenwall|Estenwall]] ([[User talk:Estenwall|talk]]) 09:07, 19 July 2013 (EDT) | |||
Here's footage of an F-16[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYXkVOSUIy0] and an Apache[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uN36JJR2Eg] deploying flares at airshow demos. Though it's harder to hear in in the Apache video because of the commentator, there is a faint thumping sound to them. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 03:28, 27 June 2020 (EDT) | |||
==Unknown 1911== | |||
Mike Banning ([[Gerard Butler]]) retrieves an unidentified 1911 pistol from President Ashur's desk inside the oval office, and wields it along with his Glock and Sig 229.--[[User:Mmarlon brando|Mmarlon brando]] ([[User talk:Mmarlon brando|talk]]) 21:57, 24 March 2013 (EDT) | |||
== Semi auto Remington??? == | |||
Ok so I saw the movie today and found a few errors, which were expected because no movie is perfect, but there's one part, when the NK mock AC-130 is attacking and the snipers are shooting at it, and it really annoys me. One of the snipers has a bolt action Remington 700 and he fires two shots simultaneously with no recoil and he never pulled the bolt. Don't know why this pisses me off so much...--NJGunner | |||
Common SFX muck-up, no different from hammer sounds for Glocks and the like. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 18:53, 22 June 2013 (EDT) | |||
==Extras== | |||
[[Image:OHF-P90.jpg|thumb|none|600px|]] | |||
[[Image:OHF-P229-1.jpg|thumb|none|601px|Agent Banning fires his P229.]] | |||
[[Image:OHF-G17-1.jpg|thumb|none|601px|A Glock-wielding terrorist rushes into the White House.]] | |||
[[Image:OHF-G17-2.jpg|thumb|none|601px|Banning holds a Glock.]] | |||
[[Image:OHF-MP5-2.jpg|thumb|none|601px|Terrorists blast away at Banning with MP5A3s.]] | |||
[[Image:OHF-RPG-1.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Terrorists prepare to fire their RPG-7s.]] | |||
==Sniper rifle with green stock?== | |||
One of the FBI HRT snipers was using this: | |||
[[Image:OHFGreenSniper.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Sniper rifle with a green stock.]] | |||
[[Image:OHFGreenSniper2.jpg|thumb|none|600px|]] | |||
At first I thought it was a 700 AICS, or an AWM, but I'm not a 100% sure. Perhaps a SAKO TRG? Any suggestions? --[[User:Warejaws|Warejaws]] ([[User talk:Warejaws|talk]]) 16:19, 13 August 2013 (EDT) | |||
Looks like an M40A3. | |||
[[Image:M40a3.jpg|thumb|none|450px|M40A3 sniper rifle with Harris bipod - 7.62x51mm NATO]] | |||
[[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 07:50, 8 September 2013 (EDT) | |||
== Long-distance shooting pistol grip? == | |||
During the gun battle on the North Lawn of the White House, Agent Banning dispatches a female North Korean sniper who is shooting uniformed DC police officers. He does this by crossing his arms, gripping his right bicep with his left hand, and balancing his P229 on his left bicep to steady it as he fires. I've never seen this technique used in a film before or taught in a firearms course. Is this some kind of military pistol shooting technique (Banning being ex-Ranger Battalion)? Or was it just a way of shooting that looked cool to the director (much like the now-infamous method of gangbangers turning their guns 90 degrees to aim)? | |||
[[File:OHF 5403.jpg|thumb|none|600px|Banning uses the target stance.]] | |||
[[File:MB-Rem700.jpg|thumb|none|600px|A similar stance taken as seen in ''[[Mythbusters]]''.]] | |||
Most likely just the actor trying to look professional in the scene. The shot of him aiming and the shot of the sniper getting shot by him aren't in the same shot so they most likely recorded a shot of him taking aim at "something" and used that footage as the one where he took out the sniper [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01|talk]]) 11:14, 2 September 2013 (EDT) | |||
:I have seen this stance before, but only for using rifles from a standing or kneeling position. I don't think it would really help at all with a pistol, in fact I think if anything it would make you less accurate. The sights on a pistol are designed to work with your arms fully extended away from the body, if you use this stance the pistol is much closer which will mean that the front sight blade will have more room around it in the rear sight so your aim would be less precise. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 13:08, 2 September 2013 (EDT) | |||
==No body armor on Secret Service agents== | |||
Watching this movie again, I was put off when all the Secret Service agents that died getting shot were all body shots. Yeah, I get that vest couldn't stop the machine guns but the MP5s should have none nothing but annoy them. Especially the one scene where what's his face with the Uzi got finished off by shots to the chest. No vests. [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01|talk]]) 11:20, 2 September 2013 (EDT) | |||
I noticed that too. Although, a lot of the terrorists (including the one that finished off what's his face) were using FN P90s, which were designed around the principle of being able to penetrate some of the most advanced body armors. Plus, he fired at nearly point-blank range, so I doubt the rounds would have much trouble ripping through armor that close. | |||
No, none of the terrorists were using P90s. They were all using MP5s [[User:Excalibur01|Excalibur01]] ([[User talk:Excalibur01|talk]]) 10:53, 11 February 2014 (EST) | |||
== Hydra 6 Cannons == | |||
Did anybody else notice that the Gatling-style guns on the Hydra 6 system seemed a little too big for M134s? Also, if they were building an experimental anti-air weapon system, is it possible that they just scaled up the barrels of the M134 and re-chambered it for 20 or 30mm? Those calibers would be far better anti-air rounds, considering they've already been used in the Vulcan Air Defense System (VADS). | |||
:That thing looks like a GI Joe toy. Are those missiles Rapiers? --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk:Funkychinaman|talk]]) 10:40, 11 February 2014 (EST) | |||
::They are similar, but they are way too small in relation to the guns and appear stubbier with shorter control fins. To be honest I think everything on that is largely made up, as the relative proportions of everything are way off. Either they are Miniguns and the missiles and rockets are absolutely tiny, or the guns are meant to be much larger than miniguns (I'm more inclined to the latter, as in general proportions the guns are closer to Vulcans, just with Minigun style barrel clamps). It kind of reminds me of a defence turret that you would find in a computer game though, it starts of with just guns, then you upgrade it with rocket pods to deal with armour, and finally missiles to shoot down aircraft. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 17:19, 11 February 2014 (EST) | |||
== North Korean sniper's rifle. == | |||
Hey guys, I really don't think the female sniper's rifle is an HK 416. | |||
[[Image:OHFHK416.jpg|thumb|none|601px|The North Korean sniper aims her HK416.]] | |||
The handguard and front sight are wrong. I think it's a different AR-15 pattern rifle, but it can't be a 416.-Gunner5 | |||
:I'm obviously late but i agree, it doesn't look like an 416.--[[User:AnActualAK47|AnActualAK47]] ([[User talk:AnActualAK47|talk]]) 16:32, 28 December 2015 (EST) | |||
Latest revision as of 07:28, 27 June 2020
Why would an AC-130 have guns as small as M134s? IIRC, the 25mm GAU-12 is what current AC-130s carry after being upgraded from 20mm M61s, so it should be noted that such an armament is inaccurate. Furthermore, why is an AC-130 attacking a Secret Service sniper? Somehow stolen by the NKs? The trailer did show it being shot down by an F-22.
This movie is gonna be awesome. Spartan198 (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2013 (EST)
I think the AC-130 was meant to be 2 things, shock and awe and to eliminate the Secret Service snipers on the roof top, which would clear the entry teams going through the front door. Of course even if it was depicted with the GAU 12 guns...It would be just as overkill with the cannon if they used it. I don't know what the roof of the White House is armored with...but I doubt it could withstand anything from an AC-130. Also the movie expected us to believe that the White House's AAA defenses didn't activate the moment it detected something like an AC-130 coming at it? Honestly, the invasion of the White House in 24 was more realistic and less over the top. Excalibur01 (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2013 (EST)
Not saying an ACOG on in MP5 is impractical but...there's something odd about it, mostly that the MP5 lacks range, accuracy and punch of a rifle and they would be using it indoors for the assault on the White House...wouldn't it have been practical for all the MP5s to be equipped with zero magnifying optics like Aimpoints, Eotechs...an ACOG on an MP5 to me is just...weird. Excalibur01 (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2013 (EST)
- A similar setup was used by Jason Issacs in Green Zone. MP5A3 with an ACOG on top that had a magical nightvision mode that didn't require goggles. He used it for close-quarters street combat. --DeltaOne (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2013 (EDT)
- I feel the same way but I remember seeing some early model MP-5s with the 4x Hendsolt scope which was/is a lot bulkier than the ACOG if memory serves. --Charon68 (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2013 (EST)
- True, then as the MP5 aged all the way to modern times, you rarely see it with a powered optic. Also be in mind that the Hendsolt scope was never designed for the MP5. Just because a weapon has a maximum range of X doesn't mean a powered optic will 100% guaranteed a hit at X range or would it be effective in a combat situation. Excalibur01 (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2013 (EST)
- The British SAS used to sometimes mount Hensoldt Z-24 scopes on their MP5s, as did the British police. However I think this was partly due to the fact that red dot sights were not as far along as they are today, and also that compact carbines were not as prevelant as they are today which now fill the medium range roll that these scoped MP5s had. For example whereas the police used to have an MP5 with a 4x scope, you will now only see MP5s with an EOTech or other red dot sight, alongside G36Cs with either the ZF 3x4° carry handle or a Leupold 1-3x14mm CQ/T. These days if it is being used in a role where it would benefit from a powered optic, a compact carbine is generally the preferred choice. Particularly in the case of this film where they are going fighting in a building, the ACOG is an odd choice. --commando552 (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2013 (EST)
- An ACOG on an MP5 simply means said MP5 can be employed at its maximum effective range, not at the optic's maximum viewing range. It can also be used as a means of reconnoitering a distant location up close, such as bad guys' positions, before moving in closer. This guy, for example, wouldn't have the extra weight of an Elcan on his CQBR unless he had some use for the secondary magnification level. Spartan198 (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2013 (EDT)
- That is a 5.56x45mm AR-15 rather than a 9x19mm MP5 though which has more range so benefits more from a magnified optic. Regardless, it is not so much just that there are ACOGs on MP5s, but the fact that they are using them for an operation which will be purely CQB inside a building where the longest range they will be shooting at is 10-20 meters. --commando552 (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2013 (EDT)
- The idea is the same, though. Effective use of the weapon at its maximum range. Any magnified optical sighting system can see far beyond the max range of its host weapon, regardless of whether that weapon is an MP5 sub gun or an M68 cannon on an Abrams tank. Plus, an ACOG with an illuminated reticle (which is most models) can be used as a rudimentary CQB optic by looking through it with both eyes open and using the reticle as your point of aim. Spartan198 (talk) 07:03, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
- That is a 5.56x45mm AR-15 rather than a 9x19mm MP5 though which has more range so benefits more from a magnified optic. Regardless, it is not so much just that there are ACOGs on MP5s, but the fact that they are using them for an operation which will be purely CQB inside a building where the longest range they will be shooting at is 10-20 meters. --commando552 (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2013 (EDT)
- True, then as the MP5 aged all the way to modern times, you rarely see it with a powered optic. Also be in mind that the Hendsolt scope was never designed for the MP5. Just because a weapon has a maximum range of X doesn't mean a powered optic will 100% guaranteed a hit at X range or would it be effective in a combat situation. Excalibur01 (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2013 (EST)
Some of them do come in from the fence in the trailer and that would mean a bit of range to the building. --Iceman (talk) 10:57, 30 March 2013 (EDT)
Why would a man with a rifle try to shoot at an AC-130? It just stands out. Also the reverse shot both bothered me in the trailer and interested me. Butler did a shoulder transition around corners, pretty smart. Excalibur01 (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2013 (EST)
I think the AC-130 we see might not be an actual AC-130, it might just be something that the North Koreans piece together from a C-130 so it can conceal the miniguns on board and pretend to be a regular C-130.--Wildcards (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2013 (EDT)
- Plus if you notice on one of the previews, the AC-130 uses its gatling guns to engage a F-22 on its right side. AC-130s only have guns on the left hand side. --Insertjjs
I want to know what's coming out of those MP5s the terrorists are using cause they were going right through whatever the Secret Service guys were wearing. It's like the movie forgot that every agent wears a vest of some sort and 9mm won't go through them. And the ACOGs on MP5s still is weird to me. Almost as weird as ACOGs on P90s. Excalibur01 (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2013 (EDT)
I don't think it's supposed to be a legit AC-130. It's probably a modified C-130 by the North Koreans. That's why it had guns on the right and left side. Why the plane would have only miniguns is beyond me, but they are the North Koreans. What I want to know, is why are they so God Damn accurate? They were headshotting people left and right. Also why did it take so long for the military to respond? You would think that the U.S Military would be sending the most elite special forces to take back the White House. I was expecting Delta and DevGru on the roof in a matter of minutes. Oh well, guess I'm logical.--NJGunner (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2013 (EDT)
- Delta and DevGru (What a dumb name) would take at least a day to show up, being based in Georgia and...I'm not sure where DevGru is. But you do have the Secret Service at the White House, Washington PD, the FBI headquarters, local SWAT, fighters out of Andrews and Langley AFBs, the Marine Barracks in DC, HMX-1, and all of Qunatico Marine Base. All of those would be able to respond faster. BTW, are the Norks trying to get control of our nukes or something? --Mandolin (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2013 (EDT)
- Virginia Beach is roughly 3 hours and 20 minutes away by car. By helicopter, maybe like an hour an a half (accounting for speed and everything). One would think that a Tier one special forces unit would be the first choice for saving POTUS. Hell, Banning was a former Ranger and he single-handedly saved the President and killed a a quarter of a million terrorists. If one Ranger could do that, 4 DevGru operators could take it in a matter of minutes. Also during the initial assault, where did the RPGs come from? It's a little off track from what I was originally talking about but this pisses me off alot. I liked the movie, but there were alot of inaccuracies.--NJGunner (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2013 (EDT)
- How is this comparing to White House Down?? --DeltaOne (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2013 (EDT)
- Similar concept. Terrorists invade the White House to capture/kill POTUS and it's up to one man to save him. Spartan198 (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2013 (EDT)
- How is this comparing to White House Down?? --DeltaOne (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2013 (EDT)
The AC-130 fires several showy series of flares when missiles are fired at it from the ground and air. Firing the flares is accompanied by loud thumping boom sound effects. Does firing flares really make that kind of sound? Countermeasure flares are just magnesium or something else burning really hot. Were the sound effects truthful or was the sound put in to make the scenes more showy? I've seen flares fired from a jet fighter but it was from a distance and the sound of the jet masked everything so I didn't hear if the flare firing makes a sound. Estenwall (talk) 09:07, 19 July 2013 (EDT)
Here's footage of an F-16[1] and an Apache[2] deploying flares at airshow demos. Though it's harder to hear in in the Apache video because of the commentator, there is a faint thumping sound to them. Spartan198 (talk) 03:28, 27 June 2020 (EDT)
Unknown 1911
Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) retrieves an unidentified 1911 pistol from President Ashur's desk inside the oval office, and wields it along with his Glock and Sig 229.--Mmarlon brando (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2013 (EDT)
Semi auto Remington???
Ok so I saw the movie today and found a few errors, which were expected because no movie is perfect, but there's one part, when the NK mock AC-130 is attacking and the snipers are shooting at it, and it really annoys me. One of the snipers has a bolt action Remington 700 and he fires two shots simultaneously with no recoil and he never pulled the bolt. Don't know why this pisses me off so much...--NJGunner
Common SFX muck-up, no different from hammer sounds for Glocks and the like. Spartan198 (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2013 (EDT)
Extras
Sniper rifle with green stock?
One of the FBI HRT snipers was using this:
At first I thought it was a 700 AICS, or an AWM, but I'm not a 100% sure. Perhaps a SAKO TRG? Any suggestions? --Warejaws (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2013 (EDT)
Looks like an M40A3.
Spartan198 (talk) 07:50, 8 September 2013 (EDT)
Long-distance shooting pistol grip?
During the gun battle on the North Lawn of the White House, Agent Banning dispatches a female North Korean sniper who is shooting uniformed DC police officers. He does this by crossing his arms, gripping his right bicep with his left hand, and balancing his P229 on his left bicep to steady it as he fires. I've never seen this technique used in a film before or taught in a firearms course. Is this some kind of military pistol shooting technique (Banning being ex-Ranger Battalion)? Or was it just a way of shooting that looked cool to the director (much like the now-infamous method of gangbangers turning their guns 90 degrees to aim)?
Most likely just the actor trying to look professional in the scene. The shot of him aiming and the shot of the sniper getting shot by him aren't in the same shot so they most likely recorded a shot of him taking aim at "something" and used that footage as the one where he took out the sniper Excalibur01 (talk) 11:14, 2 September 2013 (EDT)
- I have seen this stance before, but only for using rifles from a standing or kneeling position. I don't think it would really help at all with a pistol, in fact I think if anything it would make you less accurate. The sights on a pistol are designed to work with your arms fully extended away from the body, if you use this stance the pistol is much closer which will mean that the front sight blade will have more room around it in the rear sight so your aim would be less precise. --commando552 (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2013 (EDT)
No body armor on Secret Service agents
Watching this movie again, I was put off when all the Secret Service agents that died getting shot were all body shots. Yeah, I get that vest couldn't stop the machine guns but the MP5s should have none nothing but annoy them. Especially the one scene where what's his face with the Uzi got finished off by shots to the chest. No vests. Excalibur01 (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2013 (EDT)
I noticed that too. Although, a lot of the terrorists (including the one that finished off what's his face) were using FN P90s, which were designed around the principle of being able to penetrate some of the most advanced body armors. Plus, he fired at nearly point-blank range, so I doubt the rounds would have much trouble ripping through armor that close.
No, none of the terrorists were using P90s. They were all using MP5s Excalibur01 (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2014 (EST)
Hydra 6 Cannons
Did anybody else notice that the Gatling-style guns on the Hydra 6 system seemed a little too big for M134s? Also, if they were building an experimental anti-air weapon system, is it possible that they just scaled up the barrels of the M134 and re-chambered it for 20 or 30mm? Those calibers would be far better anti-air rounds, considering they've already been used in the Vulcan Air Defense System (VADS).
- That thing looks like a GI Joe toy. Are those missiles Rapiers? --Funkychinaman (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2014 (EST)
- They are similar, but they are way too small in relation to the guns and appear stubbier with shorter control fins. To be honest I think everything on that is largely made up, as the relative proportions of everything are way off. Either they are Miniguns and the missiles and rockets are absolutely tiny, or the guns are meant to be much larger than miniguns (I'm more inclined to the latter, as in general proportions the guns are closer to Vulcans, just with Minigun style barrel clamps). It kind of reminds me of a defence turret that you would find in a computer game though, it starts of with just guns, then you upgrade it with rocket pods to deal with armour, and finally missiles to shoot down aircraft. --commando552 (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2014 (EST)
North Korean sniper's rifle.
Hey guys, I really don't think the female sniper's rifle is an HK 416.
The handguard and front sight are wrong. I think it's a different AR-15 pattern rifle, but it can't be a 416.-Gunner5
- I'm obviously late but i agree, it doesn't look like an 416.--AnActualAK47 (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2015 (EST)