Sensible Erection | Real-life Hurt Locker: how bomb-proof suits work

Wednesday, 10 March 2010

Real-life Hurt Locker: how bomb-proof suits work

quote [ How a Bomb Kills You........
A microsecond after a bomb goes off, the explosion compresses the surrounding air and blows it outward in a lightning-fast shockwave that ripples through clothing and literally flattens internal organs. ]

BAAABUMMMMMMM...... Oh shit!

[by JOECAM@12:06amGMT] [+10 Interesting]

Comments

JOECAM said @ 12:07am GMT on 10th Mar [Score:2]
Hulu is still US only. Here's Youtube

feeling constipated said @ 3:36am GMT on 10th Mar [Score:3 Underrated]
I loathe country regulated stuff on the internet.

rattus said @ 9:03am GMT on 10th Mar
Learn to use free proxy and vpn software and providers.

fhufi said @ 10:04am GMT on 10th Mar [Score:2]
It's not about that.
It's about how those fuckers even dare locking people out.

yogi said @ 4:13pm GMT on 10th Mar
That hurts...

kang said @ 1:32pm GMT on 10th Mar
When I saw this part, I was wondering why even bother wearing the suit if a bomb will kill you that far away. It's just slowing you down.

ComposerNate said @ 1:59pm GMT on 10th Mar
According to the post, the armor is primarily to the front. He should have turned around to face the explosion, walked backwards from the bomb?

sanepride said @ 6:52pm GMT on 10th Mar
*SPOILER ALERT*

later in the movie a character wearing the suit does survive an explosion at fairly close range. As I recall he is facing the blast.

maryyugo said @ 5:25pm GMT on 10th Mar
Even if it's not useful for a closeup very high strength shock wave, the suit protects against lesser shock waves. But it's particularly helpful against debris and shrapnel and I think it's also good against sniper attacks, depending probably on what they're firing.

kang said @ 4:54pm GMT on 11th Mar
Oh, I'm sure it's pretty useful in real world situations. Just this scene was like, maybe you should have jumped behind a wall or something. But it does set the tone as to how dangerous this job really is.

ring riot said @ 1:06am GMT on 10th Mar
Great movie. I've read that Marines and bomb-techs in the military watch it more as a comedy because of its apparent inaccuracies, but in terms of a tense, solid war film, it's stellar.

graham said @ 2:28am GMT on 10th Mar [Score:1 Funny]
Watching it right now. A whole lot...doesn't make sense. The small things, you know?

ie. Movie says it's 2004, guy is playing xbox360 and gears of war, which together existed in 2006...another guy has an itouch....none of the 'sight' shots have crosshairs or even dots in the middle.

Woo! 'Nucks score :D

But still, good movie -- SO FAR

kang said @ 1:01pm GMT on 10th Mar
I thought the Gears of War was a nice addition, regardless of time line, in comparing the reality to the game as well as marking what the real "gears of war" actually have to do. It makes perfect narrative sense.

Dioxin said @ 7:38am GMT on 10th Mar [Score:3 Funny]
Speaking of comedy.

Wax said @ 12:29am GMT on 11th Mar
Great series. I've watched them all twice now. (Turns out my new GF is a huge war movie fan. BONUS!)

ComposerNate said @ 8:56am GMT on 11th Mar
Is your new girlfriend Republican? It's best to check early, and good luck.

willrogers said @ 8:35am GMT on 10th Mar
My cousin actually does bomb and IED disposal in the military, including in Iraq but I haven't spoken to him recently enough to ask him about the movie.

EPT said @ 10:21am GMT on 10th Mar [Score:5 Insightful]
How it won best picture is beyond me. It's a fairly stock tale with the gimmick that it's about a previously unfocused-on specialty. Nothing particularly new, probing, or altering about it. It's a well-made film and alright to watch for the most part, but best film for a year? Doesn't speak well of the other films that year.

pleaides said @ 11:18am GMT on 10th Mar
So it wasn't just me.

kang said @ 12:57pm GMT on 10th Mar
I felt it was the most compelling film I've watched this year. Not just because of the dangerous specialty, or the insight into the paranoid-for-good-reason combat environment, but the character study and the perfect melding of his nature with his military profession. The choices he makes and risks he brings on himself as well as his comrades makes you constantly reexamine your feelings about this quiet adrenaline-seeker. The protagonist doesn't have a character arc, but it's the viewer that does.

EPT said @ 8:59pm GMT on 10th Mar
I certainly think it was a good film, but it's not fresh. Everything in it, except for it being about ordinance disposal dudes (the gimmick) has been done to death. Even Apocalypse Now has the quiet adrenaline-seeking war junkie who has troubles at home, the serene commander trying to do right by his men (he's black, too), and the nervous, slightly uncoordinated newbie (who in this film seems rather at odds with being in "an elite unit"). Throw in a sprinkling of realising the enemy is human via linking with their chilldren. It's a film of war clichés, though it's stitched together well. I didn't get a sense of something new being said.

In regards to the main character, I never re-examined my feelings for him (though you have a point for others), largely out of picking his character from the get-go: a self-absorbed arsehole who can't see others. The only reason why he's interested in their children is because it's about how he feels. Bah, late for work.

sanepride said @ 6:59pm GMT on 10th Mar
I thought this was a great movie on many levels. But whether it was worthy of 'best picture' is a different question. The Oscars are more of a popularity contest than a true ranking of quality. lot of truly sucky movies have won Best Picture. 'Forrest Gump' and 'Titanic' come to mind.

mwoody said @ 7:31pm GMT on 10th Mar
Forrest Gump is at least relatively unique. It has a character and narrative style that, while not entirely unknown (the "clever idiot" archetype), at least stand out from the usual Hollywood fare.

Titanic, though: yeah. No.

sanepride said @ 11:10pm GMT on 10th Mar [Score:1 Underrated]
Forrest Gump was an annoying, cloying, patronizing piece of crap. It basically treated the audience like they were dumber than the title character.
'Being There' is a great movie along similar lines, intelligently written and masterfully performed, especially the late great Peter Sellers in the lead.

mwoody said @ 7:30pm GMT on 10th Mar
Yep, my thoughts exactly. Of the nominees, I was rooting for District 9 for both Best Picture and Visual Effects.

At least Avatar didn't win Best Picture. That it was even nominated is fucking incredible.

EPT said @ 9:00pm GMT on 10th Mar
Hooray for District 9 and Vikus!

GammaGoblin said @ 3:11pm GMT on 11th Mar
Heheh hell yeah. But it's Wikus. Wikus van de Merwe.

anagramophone said @ 4:34am GMT on 11th Mar
i really don't think it's beyond you.

anagramophone said @ 4:36am GMT on 11th Mar
i mean, it's academytown, jake

EPT said @ 8:22am GMT on 11th Mar
Artistic license :)

kang said @ 4:29pm GMT on 11th Mar
All movies like this are comedies to the actual profession they spotlight.

My wife and I used to get a kick out of all the $2 stethoscopes and inappropriately used equipment on ER, etc. House just makes me roll my eyes. Grey's Anatomy puts me into full-tilt seizure-like Tourette's mod.

feeling constipated said @ 5:21pm GMT on 11th Mar
So for an insight into the medical world, I should stick to Scrubs then?

kang said @ 1:49am GMT on 12th Mar
Actually, yes. They can get away with a lot of truth in dark comedy. Plus they don't have to dramatize the shit out of it into a soap opera. It's funny because it's true. I've only watched a handful of shows though.

f00m@nB@r said @ 1:10am GMT on 10th Mar [Score:1 Underrated]

mwoody said @ 7:32pm GMT on 10th Mar
What does Bioshock 2 have to do with any of this?

Wax said @ 12:41am GMT on 11th Mar
"Bomb-proof?" ...I don't think so. Bomb-resistant sure...

I'm quite surprised Hurt Locker won best picture. I was generally entertained, but it was very slow at times and didn't seem very realistic. I was under the impression that it was.
I have no idea whatsoever how a real bomb squad operates in the field during war but I seriously doubt this movie portrays it accurately.
I give it a 7.5 / 10