VC with helicopters???
-
Bioweapon — 16 years ago(January 20, 2010 10:17 PM)
Maybe they were outunmbered by your superior gear and tactics, but they kicked your ass off
PS: piggies had the AK-47, and you had the M-16. Are you sure you had better equipment?
Even US marines preferred the AK-47 over the M-16, since the M-16 had a lot of issues. The reason they didnt adopted it was that the fire noise of the AK-47 was distinctive and USMC using this weapon could be confused with the enemy, resulting in friendly fire KIAs. -
biggusdickus76 — 15 years ago(May 11, 2010 08:44 PM)
Block quote:
Maybe they were outunmbered by your superior gear and tactics, but they kicked your ass off
PS: piggies had the AK-47, and you had the M-16. Are you sure you had better equipment?
Even US marines preferred the AK-47 over the M-16, since the M-16 had a lot of issues. The reason they didnt adopted it was that the fire noise of the AK-47 was distinctive and USMC using this weapon could be confused with the enemy, resulting in friendly fire KIAs.
Bioweapon, the M-16 is a far more accurate weapon than the AK-47, and it's FAR more lethal in the hands of expert marksman than the AK-47. I doubt the marines ever seriously considered using the AK in the field. I know from experience the army never did and never would to this day. -
Bioweapon — 15 years ago(May 13, 2010 05:36 AM)
AK-47 is far more powerful and does not have issues such as:
- overheating (reason for which M-16 cannot be used in full auto)
- does not get jammed easily (USMC in Vietnam preferred ak-47 over M-16)
- Ak-47 is a very solid weapon
As far as i know, todays weapon of choice is M4A1 and not M-16 in US army.
PS: any weapon, even a .22 carbine can be deadly in the appropriate hands.
-
Crevan1986 — 15 years ago(February 27, 2011 01:42 PM)
AK-47 is far more powerful and does not have issues such as:
- overheating (reason for which M-16 cannot be used in full auto)
- does not get jammed easily (USMC in Vietnam preferred ak-47 over M-16)
- Ak-47 is a very solid weapon
As far as i know, todays weapon of choice is M4A1 and not M-16 in US army.
PS: any weapon, even a .22 carbine can be deadly in the appropriate hands.
The M-16 isn't prone to overheating, and it can be used for full auto. Full Auto's just not generally that useful. 20 rounds "over there somewhere" is not as good as 1 round in the correct place. The reason the M-16a4 (used by Marines and some Army units) is only Semi-auto/3rd Burst is because the m249 or m240 fills the role of suppressive fire if it's needed.
The m-16 had jamming problems because of an error in the bureaucratic process. Someone got their information crossed and declared the gun perfect, and would never need to be cleaned after use. They were wrong. With the issued cleaning kits the jamming was a non-issue.
I agree, the AK-47 is a VERY competent Assault Rifle and it's faults are few and far between.
The m4A1 IS an m-16. The only difference is barrel length. The uppers and lowers are interchangeable between the two. The m4 is just a carbine version of the m16, and is superior in close quarter urban combat like the US faces at the moment. The m-16 is still in use and issued, however, and still performs perfectly fine.
I am a leaf on the wind - watch how I soar.
-
BigDaddyHuah — 19 years ago(April 02, 2007 12:09 AM)
Remember that it was the very end of the war. Hue had fallen and DaNang was next. Also it was an American made helicopter - they said it was a Huey. No doubt it was captured equipment from either US or South Vietnamese forces during the rapid collapse and withdrawl, possibly from air base at Hue itself.
-
o_jmon — 19 years ago(April 02, 2007 10:38 AM)
It was not a Huey-Bell model. That was a russian helecopter. It is a typical soviet bloc model that if you push the right buttons, you can still buy today. The NVA were supplied by the USSR. And alot of the armor the NVA had was old jappanese tanks left over from WWII. My father is a Vietnam Veteran, he spent 5 tours of duty in VietnamFrom 69-75, so I know a little about end of the war technology of the NVA.
"If I had a nickle for everytime I heard that one.Kick Ass! I just found a nickle!" -
zbyszanna — 14 years ago(April 09, 2011 02:36 AM)
If anyone is interested I think the chopper used in the movie was some variant of the MI-2 and it was definatelly not any kind of Huey. See articles below:
Huey:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Huey_family
Huey variant most commonly associated with the Vietnam War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UH-1_Iroquois_variants
Mi-2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-2 -
baeksu — 18 years ago(October 15, 2007 09:19 PM)
"Did the Viet Cong (NLF/North Vietnam) have helicopters? "
Well, the Viet Cong DEFINITELY didn't, but the claim in the movie was that it was a helicopter being used by the NVA, not by Viet Cong. And the scene took place outside the war zone (in Laos). It's possible that either the Laotians or the NVA had an operational russian-supplied helicopter at that point in the war, but it would have been a bit of a surprise.
I believe both Bishop and Muir express surprise at seeing it.
If you want to talk unrealistic - then talk about the ginormous fireball that the thing sent up after being shot down by an AK-47. Knocking down a 'copter with an AK-47 would have been pretty tough to do. It sending up a backyard BBQ-style fireball when it hit the ground is even less likely. -
The24thFoot — 18 years ago(December 11, 2007 01:36 PM)
While im not sure about choppers I do know that the NVA did use armor on several occasions against US forces - the first was the siege of the US Army Special Forces camp at Lang Vei which was overrun during an attack by several hundred of NVA supported by about a dozen PT-76 light tanks of which 7 or 8 were knocked out before the NVA managed to take the base (this occurred on Feb 7th 1968). The second time was the siege of Khe Sanh where the NVA sent tanks against a US Marine armored regiment and the NVA were wiped out.
Once we left though the war took an increasingly conventional style with set piece battles and the like complete with NVA vs ARVN armored battles and such. This movie I believe takes place after 1973 (I think it says the year when Pitt and Redford are on the hill looking at the NVA base). -
jack-upland — 18 years ago(December 28, 2007 01:16 AM)
Well, Laos was being bombed - and currently has a major unexploded bomb problem - so I presume America would have had air supremacy there. I think the scene is rather incongruous with the NVA being depicted as a conventional rather than a guerilla force. They certainly would have been operating as a guerilla force in Laos! Pitt's character is depicted as serving in the field, so the Americans certainly hadn't withdrawn at that time.