Best Battle Scene of All Time

[DDBooger]

CGI - LOTR 3

Braveheart/Spartacus

[Txbroadcaster]

Opening to Saving Private Ryan

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Opening to Saving Private Ryan The urban warfare at the end was insane. When that Tiger Tank came over the mound and landed, wow.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by DDBooger
The urban warfare at the end was insane. When that Tiger Tank came over the mound and landed, wow.


When the Germans unload th anti aircraft gun directly on the troops on the tank and decapitate a couple of em was shocking

[Old Tiger]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Opening to Saving Private Ryan This thread is finished go ahead and lock it up because nothing will ever be better than that.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Old Tiger
This thread is finished go ahead and lock it up because nothing will ever be better than that. perhaps we should separate it by modern and old warfare. Swords, archers, axes and spears are pretty awesome too, just not as explosive. The opening scenes to Gladiator were pretty awesome.

[bobcat4life]

Saving Private Ryan has a couple of great ones.
Pearl Harbor-the bombing/battle is great
Gladiator is great throughout
The Patriot ending is epic

[Farmersfan]

There were some pretty good battle scenes in Cold Mountain. (one of my favorite movies ever)

[MUSTANG69]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Opening to Saving Private Ryan

My mother talked my father into seeing that movie. He was a WWII vet. He walked out after 5 minutes. He said it was too realistic and brought back memories that he didn't want to think about.

[Diocletian]

Sometimes size doesn't matter??

We have to throw in at least one of the Rambo scenes...

My fav is got to be part one in the cave, when he came out and hunted down the Cops one-by-one..... 2nd to that has to be the Latest Rambo where he basically gunned down over 300+ Rebels in less than 10 minutes.

[Old Dog]

I know many won't agree, but movies like Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers should be required viewing by young adults so they get a slight sense of what their forefathers when thru to help preserve this country and the rest of the world.

I really doubt if we could muster that type of will again on such a massive scale. The troops we have today are very courageous, but they are so few compared the the huge number pulled into WWII.

[TheDOCTORdre]

Originally posted by Old Tiger
This thread is finished go ahead and lock it up because nothing will ever be better than that.

how quickly we forget the greatest battle scene ever

best battle ever (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szHzpnFeIMo)

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Old Dog
I know many won't agree, but movies like Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers should be required viewing by young adults so they get a slight sense of what their forefathers when thru to help preserve this country and the rest of the world.

I really doubt if we could muster that type of will again on such a massive scale. The troops we have today are very courageous, but they are so few compared the the huge number pulled into WWII.

Well it did help there was a draft

[Emerson1]

And there would be no reason for anything like D-Day to happen again as you could just blow them away from 100 miles away.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Emerson1
And there would be no reason for anything like D-Day to happen again as you could just blow them away from 100 miles away.
And the most powerful nations in the world are in dialog with each other at all times and the economic connection, the interconnectedness, the lack of a opposing force equal to or greater than us serving as a threat to this nation. It's a silly comparison in a different time. Today we're destroying mudhuts looking for rats in caves and in cities where the enemy places IEDs on roads in Iraq and hit and run in Afghanistan (while deadly, hardly the equivalent to storming beaches). Should for some unforeseen reason a time arise where we faced an opponent of equal or greater might, today's youth would react similarly if called to. I just hope certain youth wouldn't be absolved of that commitment based on who their father is (Vietnam).

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by DDBooger
And the most powerful nations in the world are in dialog with each other at all times and the economic connection, the interconnectedness, the lack of a opposing force equal to or greater than us serving as a threat to this nation. It's a silly comparison in a different time. Today we're destroying mudhuts looking for rats in caves and in cities where the enemy places IEDs on roads in Iraq and hit and run in Afghanistan (while deadly, hardly the equivalent to storming beaches). Should for some unforeseen reason a time arise where we faced an opponent of equal or greater might, today's youth would react similarly if called to. I just hope certain youth wouldn't be absolved of that commitment based on who their father is (Vietnam). I am a firm believer that everyone should be required to serve 2 years in the armed forces. The higher you rank in your class, the more diverse your choices of branch and rate. No able body should be exempt.

As far as the type of "wars" that we are currently fighting. I strongly disagree with our tactics. Soilders are for fighting, not for policing.

My son watched Platoon the other night and later told his friend, who is considering enlisting in the Army, "man, whatever you do don't join the infantry" .

Private Ryan is the most intense movie ever.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by DDBooger
And the most powerful nations in the world are in dialog with each other at all times and the economic connection, the interconnectedness, the lack of a opposing force equal to or greater than us serving as a threat to this nation. It's a silly comparison in a different time. Today we're destroying mudhuts looking for rats in caves and in cities where the enemy places IEDs on roads in Iraq and hit and run in Afghanistan (while deadly, hardly the equivalent to storming beaches). Should for some unforeseen reason a time arise where we faced an opponent of equal or greater might, today's youth would react similarly if called to. I just hope certain youth wouldn't be absolved of that commitment based on who their father is (Vietnam).


one of the biggest positives of the Cuban Missle Crisis was the installation of the red phones in the White House and The Kremlin

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by DDBooger
And the most powerful nations in the world are in dialog with each other at all times and the economic connection, the interconnectedness, the lack of a opposing force equal to or greater than us serving as a threat to this nation. It's a silly comparison in a different time. Today we're destroying mudhuts looking for rats in caves and in cities where the enemy places IEDs on roads in Iraq and hit and run in Afghanistan (while deadly, hardly the equivalent to storming beaches). Should for some unforeseen reason a time arise where we faced an opponent of equal or greater might, today's youth would react similarly if called to. I just hope certain youth wouldn't be absolved of that commitment based on who their father is (Vietnam).

The most powerful nations in the world are not who we need to worry about. It's the small, radical, groups who believe that death is glory. A third world country with nowhere near our technology fought us to a standstill because we were not willing to do the things that would be required to beat them. I would not say we should "nuke" em, but unless we enter a war that we are willing to do whatever is necessary to win, we will continue to fight holding patterns.

That is the greatest difference between WW II and today's "wars", we went all out as a nation to win. No war since has been fought to win at all costs. We were even willing to utilize the atomic bomb to win WW II, and win we did. We have been castigated for it every since.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
The most powerful nations in the world are not who we need to worry about. It's the small, radical, groups who believe that death is glory. That kind of war doesn't require full mobilization and the reinstatement of the draft. Those are men in the shadows, men who are dangerous for precisely the opposite of what the military in full might is trained for aside from spec ops and CIA. See Mossad.


Originally posted by ronwx5x
T A third world country with nowhere near our technology fought us to a standstill because we were not willing to do the things that would be required to beat them. I would not say we should "nuke" em, but unless we enter a war that we are willing to do whatever is necessary to win, we will continue to fight holding patterns. And it was a strongly motivated people fighting for their homeland whether we agreed with their politics or not. Jungle warfare is brutal, it wasn't like we went light on 'Nam. Perhaps we could have thrown out moral and ethics, but the response globally would have tipped the favor and resolve behind the communists. A war based on political and economic motivation is not the same as war based on aggression, survival except to those caught in between the two giants at the time. The military did what it could in a political war.


Originally posted by ronwx5x
That is the greatest difference between WW II and today's "wars", we went all out as a nation to win. No war since has been fought to win at all costs. We were even willing to utilize the atomic bomb to win WW II, and win we did. We have been castigated for it every since. Wars since WWII have been for different motivations. The comparison alone is improper. War is war on the field of battle. The motivations behind them are quite different. The Cold war and subsequent by proxy wars are hardly comparable to WWII. Both nations (USSSR and USA) used puppets to fight and test their weaponry occasionally both becoming involved (Afghanistan and Vietnam). Nuking a population or decimating its populations because we don't agree with their govt. or culture is a tough sell. Japan on the other hand had an empire, committed horrible atrocities (Nanking, Bataan, the Philippines).

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by DDBooger
it wasn't like we went light on 'Nam. Perhaps we could have thrown out moral and ethics, but the response globally would have tipped the favor and resolve behind the communists.


We did go light on Nam in our tactics because we tried to fight a war with political rules of who not to bomb and who to bomb. Whenever we went full force we bombed them back to the stoneage, but thne we would retreat back into a shell that the NVA took advantage of.

One of the few wars a nation will lose when winning basically every battle

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
We did go light on Nam in our tactics because we tried to fight a war with political rules of who not to bomb and who to bomb. Whenever we went full force we bombed them back to the stoneage, but thne we would retreat back into a shell that the NVA took advantage of.

One of the few wars a nation will lose when winning basically every battle A 5.4 million death toll is hardly light for a country of their size. Tactically perhaps, but it wasn't like we were pushing the Vietnamese back out of other countries domain like the Germans and our firebombing of Dresden etc.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by DDBooger
A 5.4 million death toll is hardly light for a country of their size. Tactically perhaps, but it wasn't like we were pushing the Vietnamese back out of other countries domain like the Germans and our firebombing of Dresden etc.


but we were doing jsut that..when ever we would go full force..like Operation Linebacker and linebacker II the NV were brought to their knees and then they would stall with "peace talks" that allowed them to reload and revitalize. and the cycle would start over.

The NV knew the old rule..they did not have to win, just outlast and they did that, but had ALOT help from our decisions

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
but we were doing jsut that..when ever we would go full force..like Operation Linebacker and linebacker II the NV were brought to their knees and then they would stall with "peace talks" that allowed them to reload and revitalize. and the cycle would start over.

The NV knew the old rule..they did not have to win, just outlast and they did that, but had ALOT help from our decisions I don't disagree, we're just splitting hairs here. We could have gone that route and we could have doubled that number if not tripled it. Hell, we could have wiped them off the map. Doing that in a region where we were fighting to stop the spread of an economic theory would have spooked the remaining nations to allow Russian and Chinese intervention if not have fully mobilized units in the area. It was a delicate balance and for decades both the USSR and USA played with the politics and perspective to the world. It's why wars like that shouldn't be fought. Especially considering who did the fighting and who DIDN'T! edit

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by DDBooger
I don't disagree, we're just splitting hairs here. We could have gone that route and we could have doubled that number if not tripled it. Hell, we could have wiped them off the map. Doing that in a region where we were fighting to stop the spread of an economic theory would have spooked the remaining nations to allow Russian and Chinese intervention if not have fully mobilized units in the area. It was a delicate balance and for decades both the USSR and USA played with the politics and perspective to the world. It's why wars like that shouldn't be fought. Especially considering who did the fighting and who DIDN'T! edit

And we have repeated the fight a war by political rules now..and that is why it frustrates me that we did not learn our lesson that troops must fight to win, not fight with ROI that make it unwinnable.

[wimbo_pro]

Band of Brothers, the taking of Caretan.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by DDBooger
That kind of war doesn't require full mobilization and the reinstatement of the draft. Those are men in the shadows, men who are dangerous for precisely the opposite of what the military in full might is trained for aside from spec ops and CIA. See Mossad.

And it was a strongly motivated people fighting for their homeland whether we agreed with their politics or not. Jungle warfare is brutal, it wasn't like we went light on 'Nam. Perhaps we could have thrown out moral and ethics, but the response globally would have tipped the favor and resolve behind the communists. A war based on political and economic motivation is not the same as war based on aggression, survival except to those caught in between the two giants at the time. The military did what it could in a political war.

Wars since WWII have been for different motivations. The comparison alone is improper. War is war on the field of battle. The motivations behind them are quite different. The Cold war and subsequent by proxy wars are hardly comparable to WWII. Both nations (USSSR and USA) used puppets to fight and test their weaponry occasionally both becoming involved (Afghanistan and Vietnam). Nuking a population or decimating its populations because we don't agree with their govt. or culture is a tough sell. Japan on the other hand had an empire, committed horrible atrocities (Nanking, Bataan, the Philippines).

I never said the nuclear option should be used. Your whole argument uses circular logic if you think that the enemy in any of these countries is not commiting horrible atrocities and this is the reason we should continue on our present course. Which is it? We are indeed battling a foe who is political and dogmatic in his belief and in fact blurs the difference between the two.

In Vietnam the US was there for all the wrong reasons. Didn't go light? We did not attack major population centers such as Hanoi and Haiphong for political reasons. When surface to air missles made an appearance in NVN in 1965 the air force and navy were not even allowed to attack the known sites until they wer in operation and firing. Every target had to have the approval of the president and his advisors.

I see many of the same mistakes going on in our current struggles. Yes, collateral damage should be limited, but not the prime motivating factor. Our enemy doesn't seem to mind causing collateral damage, but is, if not winning, at least gaining.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
I never said the nuclear option should be used. Your whole argument uses circular logic if you think that the enemy in any of these countries is not commiting horrible atrocities and this is the reason we should continue on our present course. Which is it? We are indeed battling a foe who is political and dogmatic in his belief and in fact blurs the difference between the two.They are, but they are not nation states. You are not correctly understanding the term of circular logic or you entirely took my point in a different direction. We are battling a ruthless enemy. One that doesn't necessarily bow to a flag. Doesn't have a nation of its own. But operates in several, likely ours too. Your point of political and dogmatic was never even argued, only the scale of warfare, our response and reasoning behind military action.


Originally posted by ronwx5x
In Vietnam the US was there for all the wrong reasons. Didn't go light? We did not attack major population centers such as Hanoi and Haiphong for political reasons. When surface to air missles made an appearance in NVN in 1965 the air force and navy were not even allowed to attack the known sites until they wer in operation and firing. Every target had to have the approval of the president and his advisors. Again, 5.4 million Vietnamese stand in contradiction to "light." We didn't utilize all the tools of warfare because we weren't out to obliterate Vietnam, but make it a capitalistic society even if it meant installing fascist leaders.


Originally posted by ronwx5x
I see many of the same mistakes going on in our current struggles. Yes, collateral damage should be limited, but not the prime motivating factor. Our enemy doesn't seem to mind causing collateral damage, but is, if not winning, at least gaining. Well, then we need to change our aims from nation building to destroying.

[IHStangFan]

BOB - Big Bear (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOkPyLwThls)