VC with helicopters???
Did the Viet Cong (NLF/North Vietnam...) have helicopters?
(& PS does anyone else have problems with Brad Pitt being involved in the Vietnam War???)
[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Spy Game (2001) Discussion > VC with helicopters???
It was NVA and not the VC and was addressed during the film. When the appearance of the helicoptor is reported, Muir responds "but the NVA doesn't have air support", showing that he was surprised there was a helicoptor.
Anyway, as to why enemy forces would have a working helicoptor when the U.S. had air supremacy during most of the war can be explained by the fact that the assassination took place in Laos and we never officially did any fighting in Laos, at least not any we would admit to. Since it wasn't an official warzone, that would explain the enemy having an operational helicoptor.
"Maybe this world is another planet's Hell." - Aldous Huxley
The North did indeed have helicopters, though they never played much of a role because we had a lot of air power. The VC had nothing, as they weren't regular army. Vietnam did indeed have an army and they even had tanks and the like. However, knowing they were no match for our equipment and their chosen tactics, they rarely used any of that stuff.
In regards to armor and stuff, it's pretty hard to use in a jungle anyways, as we found out the hard way.
--Quickdraw--
"Would anyone like...a peanut?" - Shaun of the Dead
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 didn´t 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.
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 didn´t 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. share
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, today´s 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.
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, today´s 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.share
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.
shareIt 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 Vietnam...From 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!"
[deleted]
The Navy, he was a Navy Corpsman.
"If I had a nickel for every time I heard that one....Kick Ass! I just found a nickel!"
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
[deleted]
"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.
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).
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.
share[deleted]
The Noth Vietnamese most certainly did.
shareYeah I have a problem with Pitt being in the Vietnam War... we're the same age and I remember the war ending when I was in the 4th or 5th grade.
shareYea, I have a problem with Brad Pitt being involved in the VN War,
see my post that has not showed up yet on the board: i state that
the kid was only 12 years old in 1975. i think it is funny age-wise.
they could have chosen michael paul chan, he would have been the
exact right age for the part, & he was in the movie.
Weren't we out of VN by 1975? or thereabouts? :)
i also do not remember helicoptors having sharks teeth painted on
them ever being shown on the news much less any other VN related movie,
not that i looked out for any of those movies.
I have an issue with people not realizing that the movie takes place in 1991, not 2001 or 2010.
I am a leaf on the wind - watch how I soar.share
"Yea, I have a problem with Brad Pitt being involved in the VN War,
see my post that has not showed up yet on the board: i state that
the kid was only 12 years old in 1975."
Yeah, I hate it when they do this in movies. Like, what is Orlando Bloom doing fighting in the Crusades? He wasn't even born yet! And Errol Flynn as Robin Hood? Don't even get me started!
Very funny!
The point is that Brad Pitt doesn't seem to age throughout the movie. Even if the "present day" of the movie is 1991 (not 2001 when it was made), that's 20 years after the earliest scenes set in the Vietnam War.