We Were Soldiers 2002 Mel Gibson

whitehall

Diamond Member
Dec 28, 2010
68,360
30,552
2,300
Western Va.
It's a gritty semi-documentary about an early Vietnam battle. I understand it was panned by movie reviewers at the time because the trend was not to portray Vietnam Soldiers as heroes. A commentary at the end states that the Soldiers didn't fight for their Country or the Flag but for each other. I find it to be vaguely insulting. I can't believe that the U.S. government would hire taxi drivers to deliver KIA notification during a battle and I expect it was added for drama. Anyway it's well worth watching.
 
It's a gritty semi-documentary about an early Vietnam battle. I understand it was panned by movie reviewers at the time because the trend was not to portray Vietnam Soldiers as heroes. A commentary at the end states that the Soldiers didn't fight for their Country or the Flag but for each other. I find it to be vaguely insulting. I can't believe that the U.S. government would hire taxi drivers to deliver KIA notification during a battle and I expect it was added for drama. Anyway it's well worth watching.
It's a great movie except the celebration before they left.

It was a little thick for my tastes, but once they got on the ground it became riveting.
 
I thought it was a rather realistic (as real as film can be) war movie

i'm unsure of any insulting nature .....~S~
 
As a Vietnam Vet I am insulted by Hollywood's claim in the movie that American Soldiers in Vietnam didn't fight for their Country or their Flag.
Well screw hollywood and their PC baloney, and thank you for your service Mr Whitehall

~S~
 
The largest loss in a single battle among Americans was in Wilson's 1st world war in the Argonne when 26,000 Americans were killed. Nobody ever dared to suggest that American Soldiers didn't die for their Country and their Flag in France in WW1. About 6,000 Marines died in a month on a God forsaken island, Iwo Jima, that could have been bypassed in WW2 but Hollywood always said that they died for their Country and the Flag that still stands as a symbol of their heroism. About 35,000 to 50,000 Americans died in Truman's war in Korea but Hollywood never suggested that they weren't fighting for their Country and their Flag. Here we are in the 21st century and Hollywood surprises us with a positive movie about the 7th Cav. heroism in Vietnam but true to form they have to add an insulting little refrain at the end of the movie that claimed for the first time in American history American Soldiers weren't fighting for their Country and their Flag. It's insulting on many levels.
 
It's a gritty semi-documentary about an early Vietnam battle. I understand it was panned by movie reviewers at the time because the trend was not to portray Vietnam Soldiers as heroes. A commentary at the end states that the Soldiers didn't fight for their Country or the Flag but for each other. I find it to be vaguely insulting. I can't believe that the U.S. government would hire taxi drivers to deliver KIA notification during a battle and I expect it was added for drama. Anyway it's well worth watching.

If you read the book, those notifications were handed out by taxi drivers. Hal Moore's wife would follow them around the base and even outside the base. She would go to the women who got the telegrams (with other wives). From what I recall she raised a stink. The army wasn't ready for this kind of casualty count. She got them off bottom deliverying notifications with chaplains and other support folks.

Totally gut wrenching.

Not sure why you find it insulting.

The army pulled many of Moore's experienced leadership at the end. The story of the lost platoon was true. Some in the battle think it may have saved the LZ because it kept the NVA focus elsewhere.

Some of the men who were killed in that battle had weeks left on their enlistments....but they went. I think I would have said no. But they didn't know what they were getting into. One was reported to have told others he know he would not make it. He didn't.

Moore was prepared. His men were trained well. They fought well. The scnene were his own men got napalmed happened. Joey Galloway would say that the indian kid who was burned and later died was his nightmare. He helped move him and the burned flesh came off his heels revealing his bones. He lost men, but not what could have happened.

If you read the book....there is part two. After X-Ray, they marched most of the replacement group under the command of a guy who was there to get his ticked punched to LZ Albany. It was supposed to be a "walk in the sun" (a term for easy). They walked into an ambush. Just prior all the leadership was called up to a meeting and they were hit. Two companies were almost immediately wiped out.

The others regrouped with losses but managed to survive. It was not a good deal I think they lost close to 400 men.

Jack Smith of CBS news (was there as a PFC). He just recently passed away.

He gives an account.


LZ X-ray and LZ albany were two contrasting situations showing how much leadership in battle means.
 
Last edited:
As a Vietnam Vet I am insulted by Hollywood's claim in the movie that American Soldiers in Vietnam didn't fight for their Country or their Flag.
First, thank you for your service and sacrifice. I have known many vets and the stories they tell are incredible.

I am not sure an 18 year-old knows much about what he is fighting for. I think in any battle, you do fight for each other. You are there because of your country...but survival and protection is very local.

That isn't a black mark on anyone. I doubt it was any different in Korea or WWII.
 
The largest loss in a single battle among Americans was in Wilson's 1st world war in the Argonne when 26,000 Americans were killed. Nobody ever dared to suggest that American Soldiers didn't die for their Country and their Flag in France in WW1. About 6,000 Marines died in a month on a God forsaken island, Iwo Jima, that could have been bypassed in WW2 but Hollywood always said that they died for their Country and the Flag that still stands as a symbol of their heroism. About 35,000 to 50,000 Americans died in Truman's war in Korea but Hollywood never suggested that they weren't fighting for their Country and their Flag. Here we are in the 21st century and Hollywood surprises us with a positive movie about the 7th Cav. heroism in Vietnam but true to form they have to add an insulting little refrain at the end of the movie that claimed for the first time in American history American Soldiers weren't fighting for their Country and their Flag. It's insulting on many levels.

Hollywood is garbage. But I think Mel Gibson meant that as complement to the comraderie and bravery of the men who fought. Hal Moore paid great tribute to his men after the battle. Geopolitical whatever.....these men (and you) were called by your country and you answered. God bless you for that.

The whole idea of Vietnam was vauge in terms of goals which is what makes your sacrifice so significant (IME). It wasn't as clear. The country tied the hands of the fighting men (listen to the crap the air warriors in the North had to go through....can only follow certain ingress routes....which the North promptly lined with SAMS and always on the same time of day. Total Bullshit....but pilots did it and they died. Still the pilots did it. Men didn't understand the way we got to Vietnam, but when the call went out they showed up. I think that took more courage than I might ever be able to put together.

Hollywood is entitled to it's opinion and I think they were trying to make it a positive thing.

My opinion.
 
The scene where captain Medsker (sp?) is killed as he loads onto a medivac actually happened.

At the start of the battle, the NVA seemed to have a lot of sharp shooters who were wreaking havoc.
 
It's a nice and funny movie, but it hardly have anything to do with reality. Starting with Vietnamese soldiers armed with AK-47 in 1965. Ak-47s (and their Chinese copies) were more or less massively given to Vietnamese only in 1966. One of the first Ak-47, as far as I know, captured by Americans, was Captain Dillon's trophy, taken during the battle of Bong Son (1966). And he get it in a bunker from a body of Vietnamese officer.

It seems to me, that "Green Berets" is much more accurate in description of the reality (at least of reality of 1964).

IMG_20240520_155920.jpg

The following types of weapons were shown - the Chinese Type 50 submachine gun (a copy of the PPSh-41), the Soviet self-loading carbine SKS, the Thompson submachine gun, which were supplied to China by many of the same Americans before the whole of China became communist, and then the Chinese began to supply them to the Vietnamese and the French submachine gun MAT-49 (trophy from the French).
 
It's a nice and funny movie, but it hardly have anything to do with reality. Starting with Vietnamese soldiers armed with AK-47 in 1965. Ak-47s (and their Chinese copies) were more or less massively given to Vietnamese only in 1966. One of the first Ak-47, as far as I know, captured by Americans, was Captain Dillon's trophy, taken during the battle of Bong Son (1966). And he get it in a bunker from a body of Vietnamese officer.

It seems to me, that "Green Berets" is much more accurate in description of the reality (at least of reality of 1964).

View attachment 949395
The following types of weapons were shown - the Chinese Type 50 submachine gun (a copy of the PPSh-41), the Soviet self-loading carbine SKS, the Thompson submachine gun, which were supplied to China by many of the same Americans before the whole of China became communist, and then the Chinese began to supply them to the Vietnamese and the French submachine gun MAT-49 (trophy from the French).
I don't see a Thompson in that picture.
 
Last edited:
If you read the book, those notifications were handed out by taxi drivers. Hal Moore's wife would follow them around the base and even outside the base. She would go to the women who got the telegrams (with other wives). From what I recall she raised a stink. The army wasn't ready for this kind of casualty count. She got them off bottom deliverying notifications with chaplains and other support folks.

Totally gut wrenching.

Not sure why you find it insulting.

The army pulled many of Moore's experienced leadership at the end. The story of the lost platoon was true. Some in the battle think it may have saved the LZ because it kept the NVA focus elsewhere.

Some of the men who were killed in that battle had weeks left on their enlistments....but they went. I think I would have said no. But they didn't know what they were getting into. One was reported to have told others he know he would not make it. He didn't.

Moore was prepared. His men were trained well. They fought well. The scnene were his own men got napalmed happened. Joey Galloway would say that the indian kid who was burned and later died was his nightmare. He helped move him and the burned flesh came off his heels revealing his bones. He lost men, but not what could have happened.

If you read the book....there is part two. After X-Ray, they marched most of the replacement group under the command of a guy who was there to get his ticked punched to LZ Albany. It was supposed to be a "walk in the sun" (a term for easy). They walked into an ambush. Just prior all the leadership was called up to a meeting and they were hit. Two companies were almost immediately wiped out.

The others regrouped with losses but managed to survive. It was not a good deal I think they lost close to 400 men.

Jack Smith of CBS news (was there as a PFC). He just recently passed away.

He gives an account.


LZ X-ray and LZ albany were two contrasting situations showing how much leadership in battle means.
How freaking callus to use a taxi driver to notify families of a fallen Soldier. I still can't believe it in spite of Col. Moore's book. It probably isn't the right forum to being discussing this but Lt. Col. Moore obviously lived in officer's country and most of the KIA in the battle were enlisted. Something doesn't add up unless the Army only treated fallen officers in such a callus fashion.
 
Last edited:
How freaking callus to use a taxi driver to notify families of a fallen Soldier. I still can't believe it in spite of Col. Moore's book. It probably isn't the right forum to being discussing this but Lt. Col. Moore obviously lived in officer's country and most of the KIA in the battle were enlisted. Something doesn't add up unless the Army only treated fallen officers in such a callus fashion.

No. They simply were not ready. They didn't have the traumua notification teams in place. They never expected this kind of casualty rate.

In the movie, she delivered them. In the book she said she would follow the cabs and then go to the doors after they left.

She got after the army and they got off their butts.
 
No. They simply were not ready. They didn't have the traumua notification teams in place. They never expected this kind of casualty rate.

In the movie, she delivered them. In the book she said she would follow the cabs and then go to the doors after they left.

She got after the army and they got off their butts.
Delivering a KIA notice during an ongoing battle of unofficially unvarified KIA is bizarre. Something ain't right about Col. Moore's wife's account.
 
Delivering a KIA notice during an ongoing battle of unofficially unvarified KIA is bizarre. Something ain't right about Col. Moore's wife's account.

I don't know that the book ever established a timeline. She didn't delivery. She just followed them around. It could have been days or weeks after the battle.

The movie somehow trys to establish a tighter timeline.
 
I don't know that the book ever established a timeline. She didn't delivery. She just followed them around. It could have been days or weeks after the battle.

The movie somehow trys to establish a tighter timeline.
Maybe Col Moore decided to give his wife some substance in his book. Hollywood picked it up and dramatized it for the almighty buck and Gibson went along with it because the rest of the movie was so powerful.
 

Forum List

Back
Top