Talk:The Beast of War

I'm doing more screencaps of this film

MoviePropmaster2008

Very nice work MPM, the page came out great. The screencaps on here before were pretty low res but I love when you cover Israeli made film because you know so much about the guns (and vehicles). Great job! - Gunmaster45

"The use of a Browning M2 is curious, since Israeli Armorers have easy access to real DShK guns they have captured from the Arab armies over the years."

Obvious counterpoint to this: they may have the guns, but I imagine unless they captured an Arab army film studio they probably don't have huge amounts of movie-safe 12.7x109mm ammo for the DshKs; similarly, there's the issue of familiarity with the M2, spare parts availability, etc. If it was going to be used a lot, I can't see them being able to justify the cost of using a real DshK over a mockup to the producers, especially when they were already faking the helo and had the wrong gun on the T-55. Tim 04:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Stallone was using a REAL DSHk with real blanks in Rambo III when they were filming in Israel. The attack on the Muj Camp and Stallone firing at the helicopters from the hilltop was ALL the real deal. Making blanks is no big deal for any country with an established motion picture industry. it's just a matter of convenience, which is why we see so many Combloc weapons in movies filmed in Eastern European countries, even when (in the movie) they're supposed to be in the "U.S.". The Israelis have access to tons of Arab arms already, ever since the first serious Arab Israeli war of 1948, and the one in 1956 and the one in 1967 and 1973.  ;) There was NO really good reason, unless they didn't have DSHks blank adapted (which would be weird) or they had a lot of leftover .50 cal blanks (which the U.S. gave them as military aid). The Military training blanks work pretty well and I noticed that these guns in the film didn't have the super giant fireball that MOVIE blanks usually do (See StarShip troopers for super fireball 50 cal blanks). MPM

If its not too late to put an input, I thought maybe the T-55 converted to Ti-67 would maybe replace the Dshk to the M2 Browning to make use of US supplies. Then when the movie came along, they didn't really care or it was harder to change the M2 than it was to mock it up to the Dshk. Inceptor57 (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2015 (EDT)

RGD-1

There is no such thing as Soviet `RGD-1` hand grenade. Actually it is an `F-1` hand grenade, in service from World War 2 era. It was still in Soviet Army service during Afghan war, as well in Russian Army service during wars in Chechnya.

Sorry, back in the 1980s when a lot of our information was sketchy about Russo weapons (and there was no internet) we always called them RGD-1s. As information becomes more accurate, and people today forget we didn't have internet communications with people in Russia (plus there was previous few books on Soviet weaponry). MoviePropMaster2008 01:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

T-55 or T-62

You guys would know better than I do, I only raise the question because I came across a link saying it's a T-62. But it's from Wikipedia, so I guess consider the source. I only raise the question so it can be answered here. This is the link:

"The Beast is a movie released in 1988 about the crew of a Soviet T-62 tank and their attempts to escape a hostile region, set during the invasion of Afghanistan in 1981."

It's in the Media and Popular Culture section of this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan_in_popular_culture Harleyguy 7 May 2010 01:48

And all that proves is that they are idiots who can't tell the difference between a T-62 and a T-55 (the T-55 being the base for the Israeli upgraded tanks seen in the film). All one has to do is to GOOGLE the T-62 and the T-55 (or the Israeli Ti-67 Tank) and take a hard look at the photos. These are NOT T-62 tanks. Body is wrong, Bogey wheels are wrong, gun is wrong, turret shape is wrong. That's like mixing up a U.S. M48 tank with an M60 tank. Thanks for the heads up, but seriously. Whoever wrote that probably wrote a typo. MoviePropMaster2008 08:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the Tirdan is starring/playing (as) a T-62...? :-) Was the (then almost obsolete) T-55 involved in Afghanistan? (It should have been good enogh - thanks to the lack of enemy armor)

Wikipedia is a valid source! [citation needed] Spartan198 (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2020 (EDT)

The tanks have American antenaes.

Just thought some of you might like to know this. Aside from the gun, the Israelis also awapped the antennaes.

Makes sense. Israelis used these as 2nd line armor and probably swapped out the electronics with stuff that would work with all the American Armor they had. Also I think they use off the shelf radio gear for their own indigenous tanks (Merkhavas, etc.)

If your wondering how I know this, my dad was a tanker in the National Guard. He said they were the same of type of antennaes that where on the M-1 that he was the gunner on.

Russian T55 Tank

A nice example of a real authentic Soviet armored vehicle in a Western movie. Actually an Israeli Ti-67 Tank, standing in for a T55 (the same tank except for a larger main gun) we see countless beautiful shots of the tank in action and get a real understanding of the mechanisms and functions of the vehicle. An armored vehicle lover's dream.

The main gun even recoils after a shot! Extremely rare to be seen in a Movie! - I don´t remember another Movie with this feature atm!

I think thats noteworthy

From imdb: "For increased realism, 90mm blank shells were modified to fire a weight of water out of the tanks' 105mm cannons, thus causing the cannon to recoil as if it had fired a live shell." Yep, that's pretty cool. --Flavio (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2015 (EDT)

Continuation error.

Concerning the helmet of the dead Russian at the water pond. It seems correct to me. I just watched the movie, and you can see one of the Russian tankers sitting with the helmet at the pond. Obviously to fill it up with water for the Tanks radiator. You can see him sit by the water bed with the helmet, before he runs back to the Tank, without the helmet. The scenes where the dead soldier have his helmet on his head, is prior to this. All shots after the tanker has run back to the tank, the helmet is on the water bed where he left it.

"Looking for water"

Why on earth doesn't this helicopter crew just fly back to their home base for water instead of flying blindly around the desert looking for it? Spartan198 (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2020 (EDT)