MovieChat Forums > Rescue Dawn (2007) Discussion > abandoning their rifles while out in the...

abandoning their rifles while out in the jungle...good idea?

posted 13 years ago by zackattack-1
8 replies | jump to latest

I can understand why they ditched the rifles in the creek; they were already in the jungle for days and it was pretty obvious none of the guards were looking for them.

After Dieter and Duane went out into the jungle in an attempt to either signal their aircraft or reach the Thai border, wouldn't it have been a good idea to still hang on to the rifles to give out an SOS signal when they came across the choppers? It could have been a lot quicker and easier than trying to start a fire when they were passing overhead so fast.

[–] Panpl 13 years ago

The Americans shot at Dieter when he was just waving his hands at them. Imagine what they'd have done if he'd fired an AK-47 at them.

[–] deltonaman101 11 years ago

I agree, hard to see a person from the air. and if he shot to warn them, he would be shot at. also no reason to keep a rifle if you can't somehow get additonal ammo for it.

[–] Arnold_Schwarzenegger_FTW 11 years ago

Seeing as they were becoming a lot more weaker due to hunger and the harsh conditions the guns would feel a lot heavier and may tire them out also if they fired their weapons they could of risked giving away their position to the enemy. Personally tired or not I would still of held on to my weapon as a way to defend myself

[–] michaeluk26 10 years ago

It was absolutely ridiculous for them to get rid of their guns. He said they could not fight off the VC if they ran across them. Maybe not a whole damn company of them but if you ran into a squad of them I would damn well rather have a gun then not. Anyone that has been in the military knows you NEVER get rid of your weapon.

Haters gonna hate

[–] bhilburn 10 years ago

I wouldn't have gotten rid of the weapons either. If I was in his position, I would've hung onto the weapons in case I ran into another NV patrol. There's no way in hell I would go back into captivity again after what they went through. It might have been a short fire fight, but be taken prisoner again, NFW.

"check the imdb cast list before asking who portrayed who in movies please"

[–] pathofthesword 10 years ago

Like the others have said. They will only get them into more trouble. Plus, carrying rifles can get impossibly heavy as the hours pass specially, in their emaciated condition.

[–] Terrapin2212 9 years ago

Yes and Duane would have survived if they still had the rifles and were able to shoot the villagers attacking them. It's not as if their hands were up LOL

[–] afredfan 9 years ago

The whole point I think Dieter was making was think of any scenario in which shooting the rifles was better than not shooting.

Hunting? No, attracts unwanted attention from enemy soldiers, civilians and American aircraft

Self-defense? No. Against enemy soldiers their best bet would be to flee, rather than get involved in a firefight. They were so weak, no way they could have fought for minutes or hours. Plus risk of injury. Better to avoid and hide. Hard to look harmless carrying the AK-47. Civilians? Not really. Even if firing the weapons helped, they would still attract soldiers in the area.

Best thing would be is to appear as much like peasants as possible.

Fighting in unfamiliar territory with no help is not conducive to survival. I concur with Dieter, there were no probable scenarios where using the rifles would be of real benefit.