| 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
(→Long-distance shooting pistol grip?: new section) |
|||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
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) | 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) | ||
== 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)? | |||
Revision as of 05:08, 2 September 2013
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)
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)
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)?