American Sniper and realism

[almanzo 144]

Hi fellow military buffs! This thread might contain spoilers, but I will avoid making big ones.

I just came home from the movies after seeing "The american sniper" and a couple of things in the movie made me question it's accuracy, and since I know there is several people in these very forums with a lot of knowlege on the US military and military tactics in general I decided to ask.

There is quite alot of scenes in the movie where Chris Kyle is stationed on a roof as over watch in cqb situations. According to his range finder, most of the targets he engages is below 200 meters... Considering he is using a marksman/sniper rifle with a high powered scope instead of say an ACOG, I found this a bit odd. Isn't the rifle to big and impractical and the zoom level of the scope a bit to high for engagements at that range? I mean, an M16 with an ACOG would do the trick, wouldn't it?

Secondly there is a scene

where they are stationed on a roof, this time he does a very long shot and the position they are in are swarmed by what seems to be at least between 50 and 100 opfor, is this even remotely realistic?

From what I've seen of real military footage, most engagements are usually from very high distances, and it's unusual to see CQB without a large presence of bluefor...

For me, the mere thought of having a sniper on a roof top to cover a crossing just 200 meters down the road seemed utterly stupid, but I might be ignorant... Anyone here who either are a SEAL or know anything about it?

Oh, and there are several scenes where Kyle is actually taking part in CQB using only his M4, tagging along the marines, would that ever happen?

[mikey74 186]

yes to all. Though some are uncommon but in battle you always need to expect the unexpected. So yes with a high powered scope and rifle you can engage at even less than 200 meters. sure an m4 would do the trick, but you use what you have at the immediate. Some would call it over kill, but if its ur hiny or your buddies hiny on the line you use what you have immediate if needed. ;)

[eddo36 16]

If you read the book, the character may not have been portrayed realistically, unless you're just talking about the gunfights.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

Considering he is using a marksman/sniper rifle with a high powered scope instead of say an ACOG, I found this a bit odd. Isn't the rifle to big and impractical and the zoom level of the scope a bit to high for engagements at that range? I mean, an M16 with an ACOG would do the trick, wouldn't it?

An assault rifle would do the job of hitting a man-size at a couple of hundred meters but what if the target doesn't present a man-size target to shoot at because it's behind cover/concealment? The point of sniper rifles isn't necessarily to hit stuff at long range; it's to hit things accurately, and accuracy counts at any range.

If you ever read a book or watched a documentary about blokes going through a sniper cadre: Getting as close as possible to the target is pretty much what all their field-craft skills are about, and a huge emphasis is placed on their ability to do it. The whole long-range shooting thing is for when circumstances don't permit them to get close.

True enough having big, high-magnification optics limits your field-of-view when looking through them, but that's why snipers work with a spotter to scan for targets. Two pairs of eyes have a much bigger FOV than any single person with a rifle. But most scopes of that nature have a low magnification setting in the region of 3x to 5x magnification anyway. So they're really no more overpowered than than an ACOG - they just weigh a heck of a lot more.

Edited February 1, 2015 by da12thMonkey

[rye1 21]

The CQB in this movie was actually semi-decent. There were a few elements that were bullsh---- but most it was pretty spot on. The first time I've ever seen a DJT (Doorjamb Takeoff) done properly in a movie.

[maturin 12]

Yes, most of this movie was typical Hollywood nonsense shortening up engagement distances to the point of claustrophobia and whatnot. The movie is usually depicting scenes that were never described in the book. And even if they did appear in the book, the author was such a pathological liar that it shouldn't count for much.

Oh, and there are several scenes where Kyle is actually taking part in CQB using only his M4, tagging along the marines, would that ever happen?

This really pissed me off. He just ABANDONED HIS POST, leaving all the men on the street without sniper cover, so he could go be a glory hound. He deserved to be shit-canned for that.

Edited February 5, 2015 by maturin

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Ill tell you guys that Monkey is right. I don't know jack squat about snipers, but when i get a Sniper Rifle in Arma, it isn't necessarily to do long range shooting. I find spots in the terrain where i can get close to my target(s) without letting myself be known from surrounding enemies, at the same time as having a good route of escaping just in case they are the more aggressive and pursuing type of enemies. But if it comes own to it, and i have no other option of engagement, i will go for the long range tactics. It's a number of factors that determine whether you want to do long range, or close range engagements with an enemy. My main factors are Strength of the enemy, Numbers of the enemy, Capabilities of the enemy, and a far fetched guess on if the enemy is capable of returning fire.

[eddo36 16]

There are a few contradictions

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/30/the-complicated-but-unveriable-legacy-of-chris-kyle-the-deadliest-sniper-in-american-history/

[chrisb 196]

Hollywood propaganda..

[mistyronin 1181]

Hollywood propaganda..

Propaganda in what sense? If it's almost a poem against war and it's consequences in people.

[chrisb 196]

Propaganda in what sense? If it's almost a poem against war and it's consequences in people.

If you don't know, then I can't explain it to you..

Which is unfortunate.. your comment after the '?', well I leave you with your rose coloured specs on..

[maturin 12]

Propaganda in what sense? If it's almost a poem against war and it's consequences in people.

It's something of a Rorschach test on that count. You can also construe it as a hoo-rah jingoistic love letter to the military. That's why it was successful.

[mistyronin 1181]

It's something of a Rorschach test on that count. You can also construe it as a hoo-rah jingoistic love letter to the military. That's why it was successful.

Well, as a former soldier, my feeling after watching the movie is to remember all the downsides of the job, and how war can destroy even the best trained soldiers.

Basically it explains the life of a guy that even if he was supposed to be a war-machine, "the legend", he couldn't escape to all the nightmares and all the shit that war is.

Even being the sniper SEAL "superstar" he couldn't even keep his promises to protect a civilian family. It shows how he was becoming addicted to the adrenaline at the same time that he was destroying his family.

It also gives a glimpse of how traumatic was his childhood with a really violent father and how it affected how he saw life.

Even after serving, although he was back home in one piece physically, he was completely wasted internally, lost a lot of friends, and couldn't even control himself in a family party.

The movie ends showing that even the super-mega American hero could be killed by a twisted punk also affected by the same shitty war that neither of them could understand.

IMHO it tries to make people think twice before joining the army, and show how even the best can end awfully. Besides showing how people lose lives, legs, face, the brain... even Kyle's brother is depicted as really affected by the war.

I can understand that for some young naive impressionable mind any "bang bang" can be a motivator... or that for some really die-hard mindless "patriots" it shows the ultimate sacrifice... But I like to think that most of the people who watch it are mature enough to get the point that war is hell and that no one can escape unscathed from it.

Tho yeah, if a movie can have really different lectures it means that's a true piece of art ( and by no means a piece of propaganda), my hat off to mr. Eastwood.

Even if as any other movie, it's has some flaws.

Edited February 9, 2015 by MistyRonin

[eddo36 16]

Propaganda in what sense? If it's almost a poem against war and it's consequences in people.

Read the link I posted earlier.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/30/the-complicated-but-unveriable-legacy-of-chris-kyle-the-deadliest-sniper-in-american-history/

He claimed stuff like sniping Americans from the top of the Superdome during Hurricane Katrina. Do you really believe that? Many think he was a compulsive liar in real life, while the movie Chris Kyle was much more charismatic.

[mistyronin 1181]

Read the link I posted earlier.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/30/the-complicated-but-unveriable-legacy-of-chris-kyle-the-deadliest-sniper-in-american-history/

He claimed stuff like sniping Americans from the top of the Superdome during Hurricane Katrina. Do you really believe that? Many think he was a compulsive liar in real life, while the movie Chris Kyle was much more charismatic.

But we were talking about the movie, not the person nor the book.

Chris Kyle had no word in the movie for obvious reasons.