Hmmm, could be. It's been awhile since I saw the movie and even longer since I read the book, but I thought the guys you're talking about were Delta medics. If I ever get the DVD back from my brother I'll check the credits.

Does anybody else see similarities between the movie "Black Hawk Down" and the 1960's British film "Zulu"? Both movies took place in Africa; in both cases, a small force from the most powerful country on Earth (Britain in the 1860's, the USA in the 1990's) did battle with an enemy force with inferior weapons, but vastly superior numbers. In both cases, the enemy was prepared to sacrifice their lives in enormous numbers in an attempt to wipe out a relatively small force. And in both cases, the "good guys" - well, the white guys - won. Sort of.

But the strangest thing is that both movies were based on true incidents, which occurred at oppposite ends of the same continent, over a century apart.

'Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.'

I just finished reading the book (In Portuguese, aren't you proud of me). The similarity to the battle for Rourke's Drift (Zulu) was not lost on me either. Mac

Well, I don't know ...

In both cases, the "whites" considered the "black" forces as "inferior" if not negligible.
But except for that common basic error, I think those situations were quite different :

* At Rourke's Drift, a small british detachment was surrounded by a constituted Zulu army; both were well trained in their respective military ways. Equipment was quite different, the Zulu having very few firearms... their usual tactics, their sheer number and their courage were not enough to totally crush the (improvised) strong point, manned by disciplined and non-less courageous british soldiers.
Those soldiers knew their comrades had been defeated in previous days battles (their leaders underestimated the Zulu forces and tactical abilities). And they had no other choice than to make a stand. They had no time to retreat.

* At Mogadishu, the more or less organised "rebels" rapidly saw their forces augmented by a good part of the population itself, almost totally ignorant in the "art of war" and in the correct use of the few weapons they grabbed.
This was not a "rebel" prepared/planned action against the US soldiers.
The way the Rangers armed themselves for this particular mission shows clearly they completely underrate the possibility of an armed opposition. Big mistake.

Well, the battles weren't carbon copies, if that's what you're saying - battles are like snowflakes, no two are ever the same <img src="images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> - but there were more similarities than simply "arrogant white men understand natives".

In both cases, the white soldiers had superior weapons, but were vastly outnumbered.

In both cases, the black soldiers were prepared to use their huge numerical advantage to compensate for the lack of firepower.

In both cases, this willingness to spend lives like loose change was something the white soldiers - or at least their leaders - were not expecting.

My understanding was the the soldiers at Rourke's Drift had ample time to retreat, but that would have meant abandoning the river crossing to the Zulu army and exposing the white settlements to attack. Instead, they used the time to shore up their defenses as much as possible.

I rapidly re-checked an account of Rorke'sDrift battle, and you are right (at least partly <img src="images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />) : the british soldiers made a stand at this place to prevent/delay the crossing of the river by the Zulu and the then possible invasion of the Natal province.

OTOH ......
I wouldn't say they had "ample time" to retreat :
they were warned of the approching Zulu army by survivors of the defeated british task force (1500 "red tunics" killed at the Isandlawana battle, january, 22nd 1879).
This same day, at about 16:30, Zulu forces attacked the improvised "strong point".
That means, had the british forces at Rorke's Drift choosen to retreat (slowed down with their wounded), they would have been only a few hours ahead the Zulu. They then certainly would have been catched up in the open and massacred.

This being said, I agree with the rest of your post. And especially about [this willingness to spend lives like loose change] ...
AFAIK, the same thing happened in numerous other places, in Vietnam, for instance.

OTOH, a strong point as Rorke's Drift place, somehow limited the advantages of the comparatively huge numbers of Zulu.
It was physically impossible for them to attack all together ; but they could launch almost countless assaults....
Look at the Cameron battle. Or Alamo.
Nowadays, a bomb from an aircraft would "solve" these "problems".
But then, it was more "handcrafted" (?) and the assailant send troops until the defenders run out of ammunition and/or stamina....



Alain

I used to have a SOF magazine with an article about the PJ's involved in Blackhawk Down, but I lost it in a move...

The two medics from S.S.8 were the PJs. The rest of the team from that bird were Delta & Rangers as security. With everyone dressed and equipped identically there's no real way of readily telling who's Army & who's Air Force. That's one of the compromises you have to make in a movie that has so many characters and stories to tell. I'm sure no slight was intended towards any particular person or group. (That last was for Hutch66. I don't feel like making 2 posts this a.m. Sorry)


Fales is confirmed as the 2d PJ on the first page of ch.5 of "The Alamo"

Ed

As I re-read my post, it does sound a little more cynical than I intended. My point was not that the makers of the movie did anything wrong by leaving these groups out of the movie, just that it's a shame there wasn't a way to fit them all in a two hour movie. that's all.

Chris.