In Aliens (1986), why didn’t Gorman explain why weapons couldn’t be used under the primary heat...












9















This is my favourite film but I've always wondered why Gorman didn't just tell the marines why they couldn't use their weapons under the heat exchanger.



Course, he shouldn't have to but it would've helped surely.










share|improve this question




















  • 2





    As you say, he shouldn't have to (and mostly didn't - only Drake and Vasquez disobeyed). I'm pretty sure explaining an order partially undermines the authority of that order, on a psychological level.

    – Todd Wilcox
    Jun 14 '16 at 11:03






  • 2





    It definitely would have helped. And don't call me Shirley.

    – Valorum
    Jun 14 '16 at 17:18











  • @ToddWilcox It has been a while since I've watched Aliens, but I don't think that the smart-guns Drake and Vasquez used had armor piercing ammunition. That leaves the plot hole of how they were able to penetrate the alien exoskeletons, but Apone didn't seem the type to only halfway comply with orders, even if he disagreed with them.

    – Xantec
    Jun 14 '16 at 20:58






  • 1





    According to this site's what's reputation page, a user can earn +2 rep whenever a suggested edit is accepted. However, if you have more than 2000 rep (see Privileges) your edits no longer earn you rep - they're just automatically accepted.

    – Dan Pichelman
    Jun 16 '16 at 22:31






  • 1





    @Steve - None of the people who edited this question (except you) are eligible to get rep from edits. Please observe the Be Nice policy and don't add unrelated notes to your post. That's what comments are for.

    – Wad Cheber
    Jun 17 '16 at 0:15


















9















This is my favourite film but I've always wondered why Gorman didn't just tell the marines why they couldn't use their weapons under the heat exchanger.



Course, he shouldn't have to but it would've helped surely.










share|improve this question




















  • 2





    As you say, he shouldn't have to (and mostly didn't - only Drake and Vasquez disobeyed). I'm pretty sure explaining an order partially undermines the authority of that order, on a psychological level.

    – Todd Wilcox
    Jun 14 '16 at 11:03






  • 2





    It definitely would have helped. And don't call me Shirley.

    – Valorum
    Jun 14 '16 at 17:18











  • @ToddWilcox It has been a while since I've watched Aliens, but I don't think that the smart-guns Drake and Vasquez used had armor piercing ammunition. That leaves the plot hole of how they were able to penetrate the alien exoskeletons, but Apone didn't seem the type to only halfway comply with orders, even if he disagreed with them.

    – Xantec
    Jun 14 '16 at 20:58






  • 1





    According to this site's what's reputation page, a user can earn +2 rep whenever a suggested edit is accepted. However, if you have more than 2000 rep (see Privileges) your edits no longer earn you rep - they're just automatically accepted.

    – Dan Pichelman
    Jun 16 '16 at 22:31






  • 1





    @Steve - None of the people who edited this question (except you) are eligible to get rep from edits. Please observe the Be Nice policy and don't add unrelated notes to your post. That's what comments are for.

    – Wad Cheber
    Jun 17 '16 at 0:15
















9












9








9








This is my favourite film but I've always wondered why Gorman didn't just tell the marines why they couldn't use their weapons under the heat exchanger.



Course, he shouldn't have to but it would've helped surely.










share|improve this question
















This is my favourite film but I've always wondered why Gorman didn't just tell the marines why they couldn't use their weapons under the heat exchanger.



Course, he shouldn't have to but it would've helped surely.







alien-franchise aliens-1986






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Dec 5 '18 at 1:45









Jenayah

19.3k494132




19.3k494132










asked Jun 14 '16 at 10:04









SteveSteve

1646




1646








  • 2





    As you say, he shouldn't have to (and mostly didn't - only Drake and Vasquez disobeyed). I'm pretty sure explaining an order partially undermines the authority of that order, on a psychological level.

    – Todd Wilcox
    Jun 14 '16 at 11:03






  • 2





    It definitely would have helped. And don't call me Shirley.

    – Valorum
    Jun 14 '16 at 17:18











  • @ToddWilcox It has been a while since I've watched Aliens, but I don't think that the smart-guns Drake and Vasquez used had armor piercing ammunition. That leaves the plot hole of how they were able to penetrate the alien exoskeletons, but Apone didn't seem the type to only halfway comply with orders, even if he disagreed with them.

    – Xantec
    Jun 14 '16 at 20:58






  • 1





    According to this site's what's reputation page, a user can earn +2 rep whenever a suggested edit is accepted. However, if you have more than 2000 rep (see Privileges) your edits no longer earn you rep - they're just automatically accepted.

    – Dan Pichelman
    Jun 16 '16 at 22:31






  • 1





    @Steve - None of the people who edited this question (except you) are eligible to get rep from edits. Please observe the Be Nice policy and don't add unrelated notes to your post. That's what comments are for.

    – Wad Cheber
    Jun 17 '16 at 0:15
















  • 2





    As you say, he shouldn't have to (and mostly didn't - only Drake and Vasquez disobeyed). I'm pretty sure explaining an order partially undermines the authority of that order, on a psychological level.

    – Todd Wilcox
    Jun 14 '16 at 11:03






  • 2





    It definitely would have helped. And don't call me Shirley.

    – Valorum
    Jun 14 '16 at 17:18











  • @ToddWilcox It has been a while since I've watched Aliens, but I don't think that the smart-guns Drake and Vasquez used had armor piercing ammunition. That leaves the plot hole of how they were able to penetrate the alien exoskeletons, but Apone didn't seem the type to only halfway comply with orders, even if he disagreed with them.

    – Xantec
    Jun 14 '16 at 20:58






  • 1





    According to this site's what's reputation page, a user can earn +2 rep whenever a suggested edit is accepted. However, if you have more than 2000 rep (see Privileges) your edits no longer earn you rep - they're just automatically accepted.

    – Dan Pichelman
    Jun 16 '16 at 22:31






  • 1





    @Steve - None of the people who edited this question (except you) are eligible to get rep from edits. Please observe the Be Nice policy and don't add unrelated notes to your post. That's what comments are for.

    – Wad Cheber
    Jun 17 '16 at 0:15










2




2





As you say, he shouldn't have to (and mostly didn't - only Drake and Vasquez disobeyed). I'm pretty sure explaining an order partially undermines the authority of that order, on a psychological level.

– Todd Wilcox
Jun 14 '16 at 11:03





As you say, he shouldn't have to (and mostly didn't - only Drake and Vasquez disobeyed). I'm pretty sure explaining an order partially undermines the authority of that order, on a psychological level.

– Todd Wilcox
Jun 14 '16 at 11:03




2




2





It definitely would have helped. And don't call me Shirley.

– Valorum
Jun 14 '16 at 17:18





It definitely would have helped. And don't call me Shirley.

– Valorum
Jun 14 '16 at 17:18













@ToddWilcox It has been a while since I've watched Aliens, but I don't think that the smart-guns Drake and Vasquez used had armor piercing ammunition. That leaves the plot hole of how they were able to penetrate the alien exoskeletons, but Apone didn't seem the type to only halfway comply with orders, even if he disagreed with them.

– Xantec
Jun 14 '16 at 20:58





@ToddWilcox It has been a while since I've watched Aliens, but I don't think that the smart-guns Drake and Vasquez used had armor piercing ammunition. That leaves the plot hole of how they were able to penetrate the alien exoskeletons, but Apone didn't seem the type to only halfway comply with orders, even if he disagreed with them.

– Xantec
Jun 14 '16 at 20:58




1




1





According to this site's what's reputation page, a user can earn +2 rep whenever a suggested edit is accepted. However, if you have more than 2000 rep (see Privileges) your edits no longer earn you rep - they're just automatically accepted.

– Dan Pichelman
Jun 16 '16 at 22:31





According to this site's what's reputation page, a user can earn +2 rep whenever a suggested edit is accepted. However, if you have more than 2000 rep (see Privileges) your edits no longer earn you rep - they're just automatically accepted.

– Dan Pichelman
Jun 16 '16 at 22:31




1




1





@Steve - None of the people who edited this question (except you) are eligible to get rep from edits. Please observe the Be Nice policy and don't add unrelated notes to your post. That's what comments are for.

– Wad Cheber
Jun 17 '16 at 0:15







@Steve - None of the people who edited this question (except you) are eligible to get rep from edits. Please observe the Be Nice policy and don't add unrelated notes to your post. That's what comments are for.

– Wad Cheber
Jun 17 '16 at 0:15












5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















16














Someone with actual military experience can likely answer this better than me, but here goes:



Gorman was arguably a well-intentioned but narcissistic, cowardly idiot who was completely new to command. We see this again and again throughout he movie as he freezes, freaks out, and loses control of the situation. In this case, he probably assumed that he didn't need to explain- he was the officer after all, and he had given a command. You'll notice how hostile he was, at that point in the movie, to anybody who disagreed with him or who he perceived as not giving him the respect he felt he deserved.



Would it have been better had he told them? Perhaps. But you could say the same thing all along with how much better it would have been had anybody actually listened to Ripley, etc.



One of the strengths of the movie is how fairly believable much of the characterization is. Ripley doesn't give a convincing speech to the marines because she is still struggling with the trauma she faced, which makes them all shrug off her warnings in a completely believable manner. Newt is a weird little kid because she had to be to survive. Their officer is out on his very first drop and finding that real life doesn't match any of the sterile classroom lessons or simulations, and he breaks from it. He ends up having his own arc, finding redemption with Vasquez, but he needed that downfall to find redemption.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1





    It is poor leadership, plain and simple. Gorman is a weak leader, probably chosen as he would be easily controlled by Burke. Apone supports him like a good NCO but unfortunately it just exacerbates the situation by causing Vasquez and Drake to circumvent the "no firing order". I'm sure at least some of the Marines understood why Gorman issued the order, at least Hicks does when he transitions to his antique shotgun.

    – Jason K
    Jun 14 '16 at 18:17











  • 'He was the officer and he had given a command.' : end transmission. "Just do it, Sargent. And no grenades."

    – Mazura
    Jun 14 '16 at 21:03








  • 3





    @JasonK I never considered that he might have been selected by Bourke because he was weak. Tricky. Depends on how arrogant the company is- I mean, we know they are jam packed full of hubris, but it takes Ralph Wiggum levels of reality-altering dumb to purposely choose an idiot to be in command of potentially your very life. Then again, considering the crap the Company does, it's not unreasonable.

    – Broklynite
    Jun 14 '16 at 21:21






  • 1





    It's in the company manual, page 12: 'screw them over for a larger percentage.' "Burke. It was Burke."

    – Mazura
    Jun 14 '16 at 21:34











  • @Broklynite yeah, I can't come up with any other reason why Gorman would be in command. According to this site (avp.wikia.com/wiki/William_Gorman) it also says Burke specifically chose Gorman, and it cites the Aliens novelization and the Colonial Marines Tech manual as sources. Been a LONG time since I've read either, so I can't confirm. It seems odd to have a junior officer in command of that kinda mission but the USCMC seems to do it a lot. For example, the dropship pilot is just a corporal, while in the real world they would be an officer or at least a Warrant.

    – Jason K
    Jun 15 '16 at 17:32



















4














I was going to put this in my comment but I think it will work better as a complete answer. It is subjective though, based on my experience with military officers.



Gorman likely issued the order without explanation because he didn't want to open the decision up for debate and he was embarrassed. For starters, he failed to properly assess the location and detect the problem prior to making entry. Second, Ripley is the one who saw it, not him. Finally, he didn't perform a proper risk assessment to determine if pulse rifle and smartgun ammunition could actually damage the heat exchangers (as opposed to all the explosions that go off during the chaotic extraction when the ammunition cooked off [and presumably some grenades]). Burke and Ripley explain the problem to him but I'm not really sure he completely understands the risk himself.



So he was in a very weak position to issue the order. Any challenge to it would be hard to justify and expose his incompetence in not noticing it earlier and not adapting his plan to accommodate the reduced firepower (for example, setting up the remote guns as a fall back position should the squad be pursued). Gorman appears to be very self-conscious and unsure of himself and the early interactions with the squad (almost all negative in some way) reinforce that impression. So instead, he "doubles down" by making a blunt order, silencing any protest, and hoping for the best. He relies on the strength of Apone to enforce the command by collecting magazines instead of appealing to the team as a whole to get compliance.



Hicks at least might have figured out why Gorman issued the order as he transitions to his shotgun. Vasquez and Drake disobey the order which is a clear indication that Gorman failed as a leader (or that they are both malcontents).






share|improve this answer





















  • 3





    "A competent leader can get efficient service from poor troops, while on the contrary an incapable leader can demoralize the best of troops" -"Black Jack" Pershing

    – Cascabel
    Jun 14 '16 at 19:48











  • Plus, if there was any discussion to be had, that would not be the time or place (hunting unknown number and location of xenomorphs that took out the colony).

    – PoloHoleSet
    Jun 16 '16 at 16:17











  • I'd point out schlockmercenary.com/2008-11-30 through schlockmercenary.com/2008-12-04 for the counterargument Vasquez and Drake would have made -- and I'll note they held fire until /after/ the ammo bag went boom and collateral damage likely stopped being an issue.

    – Shadur
    Sep 4 '17 at 15:02



















3














Interestingly, the order of events in the film's official novelisation is actually rather different. The troops are clearly aware of the implication of their actions, they just don't seem to care, believing that their personal safety is worth more than the passingly small risk of causing a containment failure.




"Where’d you get that, Hicks? When I saw that bulge, I thought you
were smuggling liquor, except that’d be out of character for you.
Steal it from a museum”



"Been in my family for a long time. Cute, isn’t it?”



Some family. Can it do anything?”



Hicks showed him a single shell. "Not your standard military-issue
high-velocity armor-piercing round, but you don’t want it going off in
your face, either". He kept his voice down. "I always keep this handy.
For close encounters. I don’t think it’ll penetrate anything far
enough to set off any mushrooms".







share|improve this answer


























  • This question is asking about the movie, not its novelization. And "they just don't seem to care" is an answer (more of a comment, really) as to why they don't care, not why Gorman doesn't explain.

    – Mazura
    Jun 14 '16 at 21:01











  • @Mazura - Well, the novelisation would seem to imply that the soldiers worked out why they shouldn't be using explosive rounds on their own. That, at least, would apply to the movie as well as the novel.

    – Valorum
    Jun 14 '16 at 21:13



















0














Exactly. Thanks for accurately addressing the question being asked and not straying from the subject at hand AND also not completely just either forgetting or misunderstanding the essence of a very simple question.
I will never understand why people state the obvious as if they're living in an entirely different universe.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




JOHNNYHENRY is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




























    -1














    It was that they couldn't use explosive ammunition. They could only use plain rounds. Its possible that the heat exchanger could take a hit from a bullet but not an explosive one. The marines could then be seen with handguns and pump action shotguns






    share|improve this answer
























    • That may be the case, but the question is asking why he didn't explain the situation to his troops rather than simply ordering them to avoid using those rounds.

      – Valorum
      Jun 14 '16 at 17:20













    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "186"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fscifi.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f131835%2fin-aliens-1986-why-didn-t-gorman-explain-why-weapons-couldn-t-be-used-under-t%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes








    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    16














    Someone with actual military experience can likely answer this better than me, but here goes:



    Gorman was arguably a well-intentioned but narcissistic, cowardly idiot who was completely new to command. We see this again and again throughout he movie as he freezes, freaks out, and loses control of the situation. In this case, he probably assumed that he didn't need to explain- he was the officer after all, and he had given a command. You'll notice how hostile he was, at that point in the movie, to anybody who disagreed with him or who he perceived as not giving him the respect he felt he deserved.



    Would it have been better had he told them? Perhaps. But you could say the same thing all along with how much better it would have been had anybody actually listened to Ripley, etc.



    One of the strengths of the movie is how fairly believable much of the characterization is. Ripley doesn't give a convincing speech to the marines because she is still struggling with the trauma she faced, which makes them all shrug off her warnings in a completely believable manner. Newt is a weird little kid because she had to be to survive. Their officer is out on his very first drop and finding that real life doesn't match any of the sterile classroom lessons or simulations, and he breaks from it. He ends up having his own arc, finding redemption with Vasquez, but he needed that downfall to find redemption.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 1





      It is poor leadership, plain and simple. Gorman is a weak leader, probably chosen as he would be easily controlled by Burke. Apone supports him like a good NCO but unfortunately it just exacerbates the situation by causing Vasquez and Drake to circumvent the "no firing order". I'm sure at least some of the Marines understood why Gorman issued the order, at least Hicks does when he transitions to his antique shotgun.

      – Jason K
      Jun 14 '16 at 18:17











    • 'He was the officer and he had given a command.' : end transmission. "Just do it, Sargent. And no grenades."

      – Mazura
      Jun 14 '16 at 21:03








    • 3





      @JasonK I never considered that he might have been selected by Bourke because he was weak. Tricky. Depends on how arrogant the company is- I mean, we know they are jam packed full of hubris, but it takes Ralph Wiggum levels of reality-altering dumb to purposely choose an idiot to be in command of potentially your very life. Then again, considering the crap the Company does, it's not unreasonable.

      – Broklynite
      Jun 14 '16 at 21:21






    • 1





      It's in the company manual, page 12: 'screw them over for a larger percentage.' "Burke. It was Burke."

      – Mazura
      Jun 14 '16 at 21:34











    • @Broklynite yeah, I can't come up with any other reason why Gorman would be in command. According to this site (avp.wikia.com/wiki/William_Gorman) it also says Burke specifically chose Gorman, and it cites the Aliens novelization and the Colonial Marines Tech manual as sources. Been a LONG time since I've read either, so I can't confirm. It seems odd to have a junior officer in command of that kinda mission but the USCMC seems to do it a lot. For example, the dropship pilot is just a corporal, while in the real world they would be an officer or at least a Warrant.

      – Jason K
      Jun 15 '16 at 17:32
















    16














    Someone with actual military experience can likely answer this better than me, but here goes:



    Gorman was arguably a well-intentioned but narcissistic, cowardly idiot who was completely new to command. We see this again and again throughout he movie as he freezes, freaks out, and loses control of the situation. In this case, he probably assumed that he didn't need to explain- he was the officer after all, and he had given a command. You'll notice how hostile he was, at that point in the movie, to anybody who disagreed with him or who he perceived as not giving him the respect he felt he deserved.



    Would it have been better had he told them? Perhaps. But you could say the same thing all along with how much better it would have been had anybody actually listened to Ripley, etc.



    One of the strengths of the movie is how fairly believable much of the characterization is. Ripley doesn't give a convincing speech to the marines because she is still struggling with the trauma she faced, which makes them all shrug off her warnings in a completely believable manner. Newt is a weird little kid because she had to be to survive. Their officer is out on his very first drop and finding that real life doesn't match any of the sterile classroom lessons or simulations, and he breaks from it. He ends up having his own arc, finding redemption with Vasquez, but he needed that downfall to find redemption.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 1





      It is poor leadership, plain and simple. Gorman is a weak leader, probably chosen as he would be easily controlled by Burke. Apone supports him like a good NCO but unfortunately it just exacerbates the situation by causing Vasquez and Drake to circumvent the "no firing order". I'm sure at least some of the Marines understood why Gorman issued the order, at least Hicks does when he transitions to his antique shotgun.

      – Jason K
      Jun 14 '16 at 18:17











    • 'He was the officer and he had given a command.' : end transmission. "Just do it, Sargent. And no grenades."

      – Mazura
      Jun 14 '16 at 21:03








    • 3





      @JasonK I never considered that he might have been selected by Bourke because he was weak. Tricky. Depends on how arrogant the company is- I mean, we know they are jam packed full of hubris, but it takes Ralph Wiggum levels of reality-altering dumb to purposely choose an idiot to be in command of potentially your very life. Then again, considering the crap the Company does, it's not unreasonable.

      – Broklynite
      Jun 14 '16 at 21:21






    • 1





      It's in the company manual, page 12: 'screw them over for a larger percentage.' "Burke. It was Burke."

      – Mazura
      Jun 14 '16 at 21:34











    • @Broklynite yeah, I can't come up with any other reason why Gorman would be in command. According to this site (avp.wikia.com/wiki/William_Gorman) it also says Burke specifically chose Gorman, and it cites the Aliens novelization and the Colonial Marines Tech manual as sources. Been a LONG time since I've read either, so I can't confirm. It seems odd to have a junior officer in command of that kinda mission but the USCMC seems to do it a lot. For example, the dropship pilot is just a corporal, while in the real world they would be an officer or at least a Warrant.

      – Jason K
      Jun 15 '16 at 17:32














    16












    16








    16







    Someone with actual military experience can likely answer this better than me, but here goes:



    Gorman was arguably a well-intentioned but narcissistic, cowardly idiot who was completely new to command. We see this again and again throughout he movie as he freezes, freaks out, and loses control of the situation. In this case, he probably assumed that he didn't need to explain- he was the officer after all, and he had given a command. You'll notice how hostile he was, at that point in the movie, to anybody who disagreed with him or who he perceived as not giving him the respect he felt he deserved.



    Would it have been better had he told them? Perhaps. But you could say the same thing all along with how much better it would have been had anybody actually listened to Ripley, etc.



    One of the strengths of the movie is how fairly believable much of the characterization is. Ripley doesn't give a convincing speech to the marines because she is still struggling with the trauma she faced, which makes them all shrug off her warnings in a completely believable manner. Newt is a weird little kid because she had to be to survive. Their officer is out on his very first drop and finding that real life doesn't match any of the sterile classroom lessons or simulations, and he breaks from it. He ends up having his own arc, finding redemption with Vasquez, but he needed that downfall to find redemption.






    share|improve this answer













    Someone with actual military experience can likely answer this better than me, but here goes:



    Gorman was arguably a well-intentioned but narcissistic, cowardly idiot who was completely new to command. We see this again and again throughout he movie as he freezes, freaks out, and loses control of the situation. In this case, he probably assumed that he didn't need to explain- he was the officer after all, and he had given a command. You'll notice how hostile he was, at that point in the movie, to anybody who disagreed with him or who he perceived as not giving him the respect he felt he deserved.



    Would it have been better had he told them? Perhaps. But you could say the same thing all along with how much better it would have been had anybody actually listened to Ripley, etc.



    One of the strengths of the movie is how fairly believable much of the characterization is. Ripley doesn't give a convincing speech to the marines because she is still struggling with the trauma she faced, which makes them all shrug off her warnings in a completely believable manner. Newt is a weird little kid because she had to be to survive. Their officer is out on his very first drop and finding that real life doesn't match any of the sterile classroom lessons or simulations, and he breaks from it. He ends up having his own arc, finding redemption with Vasquez, but he needed that downfall to find redemption.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Jun 14 '16 at 11:05









    BroklyniteBroklynite

    16.5k35686




    16.5k35686








    • 1





      It is poor leadership, plain and simple. Gorman is a weak leader, probably chosen as he would be easily controlled by Burke. Apone supports him like a good NCO but unfortunately it just exacerbates the situation by causing Vasquez and Drake to circumvent the "no firing order". I'm sure at least some of the Marines understood why Gorman issued the order, at least Hicks does when he transitions to his antique shotgun.

      – Jason K
      Jun 14 '16 at 18:17











    • 'He was the officer and he had given a command.' : end transmission. "Just do it, Sargent. And no grenades."

      – Mazura
      Jun 14 '16 at 21:03








    • 3





      @JasonK I never considered that he might have been selected by Bourke because he was weak. Tricky. Depends on how arrogant the company is- I mean, we know they are jam packed full of hubris, but it takes Ralph Wiggum levels of reality-altering dumb to purposely choose an idiot to be in command of potentially your very life. Then again, considering the crap the Company does, it's not unreasonable.

      – Broklynite
      Jun 14 '16 at 21:21






    • 1





      It's in the company manual, page 12: 'screw them over for a larger percentage.' "Burke. It was Burke."

      – Mazura
      Jun 14 '16 at 21:34











    • @Broklynite yeah, I can't come up with any other reason why Gorman would be in command. According to this site (avp.wikia.com/wiki/William_Gorman) it also says Burke specifically chose Gorman, and it cites the Aliens novelization and the Colonial Marines Tech manual as sources. Been a LONG time since I've read either, so I can't confirm. It seems odd to have a junior officer in command of that kinda mission but the USCMC seems to do it a lot. For example, the dropship pilot is just a corporal, while in the real world they would be an officer or at least a Warrant.

      – Jason K
      Jun 15 '16 at 17:32














    • 1





      It is poor leadership, plain and simple. Gorman is a weak leader, probably chosen as he would be easily controlled by Burke. Apone supports him like a good NCO but unfortunately it just exacerbates the situation by causing Vasquez and Drake to circumvent the "no firing order". I'm sure at least some of the Marines understood why Gorman issued the order, at least Hicks does when he transitions to his antique shotgun.

      – Jason K
      Jun 14 '16 at 18:17











    • 'He was the officer and he had given a command.' : end transmission. "Just do it, Sargent. And no grenades."

      – Mazura
      Jun 14 '16 at 21:03








    • 3





      @JasonK I never considered that he might have been selected by Bourke because he was weak. Tricky. Depends on how arrogant the company is- I mean, we know they are jam packed full of hubris, but it takes Ralph Wiggum levels of reality-altering dumb to purposely choose an idiot to be in command of potentially your very life. Then again, considering the crap the Company does, it's not unreasonable.

      – Broklynite
      Jun 14 '16 at 21:21






    • 1





      It's in the company manual, page 12: 'screw them over for a larger percentage.' "Burke. It was Burke."

      – Mazura
      Jun 14 '16 at 21:34











    • @Broklynite yeah, I can't come up with any other reason why Gorman would be in command. According to this site (avp.wikia.com/wiki/William_Gorman) it also says Burke specifically chose Gorman, and it cites the Aliens novelization and the Colonial Marines Tech manual as sources. Been a LONG time since I've read either, so I can't confirm. It seems odd to have a junior officer in command of that kinda mission but the USCMC seems to do it a lot. For example, the dropship pilot is just a corporal, while in the real world they would be an officer or at least a Warrant.

      – Jason K
      Jun 15 '16 at 17:32








    1




    1





    It is poor leadership, plain and simple. Gorman is a weak leader, probably chosen as he would be easily controlled by Burke. Apone supports him like a good NCO but unfortunately it just exacerbates the situation by causing Vasquez and Drake to circumvent the "no firing order". I'm sure at least some of the Marines understood why Gorman issued the order, at least Hicks does when he transitions to his antique shotgun.

    – Jason K
    Jun 14 '16 at 18:17





    It is poor leadership, plain and simple. Gorman is a weak leader, probably chosen as he would be easily controlled by Burke. Apone supports him like a good NCO but unfortunately it just exacerbates the situation by causing Vasquez and Drake to circumvent the "no firing order". I'm sure at least some of the Marines understood why Gorman issued the order, at least Hicks does when he transitions to his antique shotgun.

    – Jason K
    Jun 14 '16 at 18:17













    'He was the officer and he had given a command.' : end transmission. "Just do it, Sargent. And no grenades."

    – Mazura
    Jun 14 '16 at 21:03







    'He was the officer and he had given a command.' : end transmission. "Just do it, Sargent. And no grenades."

    – Mazura
    Jun 14 '16 at 21:03






    3




    3





    @JasonK I never considered that he might have been selected by Bourke because he was weak. Tricky. Depends on how arrogant the company is- I mean, we know they are jam packed full of hubris, but it takes Ralph Wiggum levels of reality-altering dumb to purposely choose an idiot to be in command of potentially your very life. Then again, considering the crap the Company does, it's not unreasonable.

    – Broklynite
    Jun 14 '16 at 21:21





    @JasonK I never considered that he might have been selected by Bourke because he was weak. Tricky. Depends on how arrogant the company is- I mean, we know they are jam packed full of hubris, but it takes Ralph Wiggum levels of reality-altering dumb to purposely choose an idiot to be in command of potentially your very life. Then again, considering the crap the Company does, it's not unreasonable.

    – Broklynite
    Jun 14 '16 at 21:21




    1




    1





    It's in the company manual, page 12: 'screw them over for a larger percentage.' "Burke. It was Burke."

    – Mazura
    Jun 14 '16 at 21:34





    It's in the company manual, page 12: 'screw them over for a larger percentage.' "Burke. It was Burke."

    – Mazura
    Jun 14 '16 at 21:34













    @Broklynite yeah, I can't come up with any other reason why Gorman would be in command. According to this site (avp.wikia.com/wiki/William_Gorman) it also says Burke specifically chose Gorman, and it cites the Aliens novelization and the Colonial Marines Tech manual as sources. Been a LONG time since I've read either, so I can't confirm. It seems odd to have a junior officer in command of that kinda mission but the USCMC seems to do it a lot. For example, the dropship pilot is just a corporal, while in the real world they would be an officer or at least a Warrant.

    – Jason K
    Jun 15 '16 at 17:32





    @Broklynite yeah, I can't come up with any other reason why Gorman would be in command. According to this site (avp.wikia.com/wiki/William_Gorman) it also says Burke specifically chose Gorman, and it cites the Aliens novelization and the Colonial Marines Tech manual as sources. Been a LONG time since I've read either, so I can't confirm. It seems odd to have a junior officer in command of that kinda mission but the USCMC seems to do it a lot. For example, the dropship pilot is just a corporal, while in the real world they would be an officer or at least a Warrant.

    – Jason K
    Jun 15 '16 at 17:32













    4














    I was going to put this in my comment but I think it will work better as a complete answer. It is subjective though, based on my experience with military officers.



    Gorman likely issued the order without explanation because he didn't want to open the decision up for debate and he was embarrassed. For starters, he failed to properly assess the location and detect the problem prior to making entry. Second, Ripley is the one who saw it, not him. Finally, he didn't perform a proper risk assessment to determine if pulse rifle and smartgun ammunition could actually damage the heat exchangers (as opposed to all the explosions that go off during the chaotic extraction when the ammunition cooked off [and presumably some grenades]). Burke and Ripley explain the problem to him but I'm not really sure he completely understands the risk himself.



    So he was in a very weak position to issue the order. Any challenge to it would be hard to justify and expose his incompetence in not noticing it earlier and not adapting his plan to accommodate the reduced firepower (for example, setting up the remote guns as a fall back position should the squad be pursued). Gorman appears to be very self-conscious and unsure of himself and the early interactions with the squad (almost all negative in some way) reinforce that impression. So instead, he "doubles down" by making a blunt order, silencing any protest, and hoping for the best. He relies on the strength of Apone to enforce the command by collecting magazines instead of appealing to the team as a whole to get compliance.



    Hicks at least might have figured out why Gorman issued the order as he transitions to his shotgun. Vasquez and Drake disobey the order which is a clear indication that Gorman failed as a leader (or that they are both malcontents).






    share|improve this answer





















    • 3





      "A competent leader can get efficient service from poor troops, while on the contrary an incapable leader can demoralize the best of troops" -"Black Jack" Pershing

      – Cascabel
      Jun 14 '16 at 19:48











    • Plus, if there was any discussion to be had, that would not be the time or place (hunting unknown number and location of xenomorphs that took out the colony).

      – PoloHoleSet
      Jun 16 '16 at 16:17











    • I'd point out schlockmercenary.com/2008-11-30 through schlockmercenary.com/2008-12-04 for the counterargument Vasquez and Drake would have made -- and I'll note they held fire until /after/ the ammo bag went boom and collateral damage likely stopped being an issue.

      – Shadur
      Sep 4 '17 at 15:02
















    4














    I was going to put this in my comment but I think it will work better as a complete answer. It is subjective though, based on my experience with military officers.



    Gorman likely issued the order without explanation because he didn't want to open the decision up for debate and he was embarrassed. For starters, he failed to properly assess the location and detect the problem prior to making entry. Second, Ripley is the one who saw it, not him. Finally, he didn't perform a proper risk assessment to determine if pulse rifle and smartgun ammunition could actually damage the heat exchangers (as opposed to all the explosions that go off during the chaotic extraction when the ammunition cooked off [and presumably some grenades]). Burke and Ripley explain the problem to him but I'm not really sure he completely understands the risk himself.



    So he was in a very weak position to issue the order. Any challenge to it would be hard to justify and expose his incompetence in not noticing it earlier and not adapting his plan to accommodate the reduced firepower (for example, setting up the remote guns as a fall back position should the squad be pursued). Gorman appears to be very self-conscious and unsure of himself and the early interactions with the squad (almost all negative in some way) reinforce that impression. So instead, he "doubles down" by making a blunt order, silencing any protest, and hoping for the best. He relies on the strength of Apone to enforce the command by collecting magazines instead of appealing to the team as a whole to get compliance.



    Hicks at least might have figured out why Gorman issued the order as he transitions to his shotgun. Vasquez and Drake disobey the order which is a clear indication that Gorman failed as a leader (or that they are both malcontents).






    share|improve this answer





















    • 3





      "A competent leader can get efficient service from poor troops, while on the contrary an incapable leader can demoralize the best of troops" -"Black Jack" Pershing

      – Cascabel
      Jun 14 '16 at 19:48











    • Plus, if there was any discussion to be had, that would not be the time or place (hunting unknown number and location of xenomorphs that took out the colony).

      – PoloHoleSet
      Jun 16 '16 at 16:17











    • I'd point out schlockmercenary.com/2008-11-30 through schlockmercenary.com/2008-12-04 for the counterargument Vasquez and Drake would have made -- and I'll note they held fire until /after/ the ammo bag went boom and collateral damage likely stopped being an issue.

      – Shadur
      Sep 4 '17 at 15:02














    4












    4








    4







    I was going to put this in my comment but I think it will work better as a complete answer. It is subjective though, based on my experience with military officers.



    Gorman likely issued the order without explanation because he didn't want to open the decision up for debate and he was embarrassed. For starters, he failed to properly assess the location and detect the problem prior to making entry. Second, Ripley is the one who saw it, not him. Finally, he didn't perform a proper risk assessment to determine if pulse rifle and smartgun ammunition could actually damage the heat exchangers (as opposed to all the explosions that go off during the chaotic extraction when the ammunition cooked off [and presumably some grenades]). Burke and Ripley explain the problem to him but I'm not really sure he completely understands the risk himself.



    So he was in a very weak position to issue the order. Any challenge to it would be hard to justify and expose his incompetence in not noticing it earlier and not adapting his plan to accommodate the reduced firepower (for example, setting up the remote guns as a fall back position should the squad be pursued). Gorman appears to be very self-conscious and unsure of himself and the early interactions with the squad (almost all negative in some way) reinforce that impression. So instead, he "doubles down" by making a blunt order, silencing any protest, and hoping for the best. He relies on the strength of Apone to enforce the command by collecting magazines instead of appealing to the team as a whole to get compliance.



    Hicks at least might have figured out why Gorman issued the order as he transitions to his shotgun. Vasquez and Drake disobey the order which is a clear indication that Gorman failed as a leader (or that they are both malcontents).






    share|improve this answer















    I was going to put this in my comment but I think it will work better as a complete answer. It is subjective though, based on my experience with military officers.



    Gorman likely issued the order without explanation because he didn't want to open the decision up for debate and he was embarrassed. For starters, he failed to properly assess the location and detect the problem prior to making entry. Second, Ripley is the one who saw it, not him. Finally, he didn't perform a proper risk assessment to determine if pulse rifle and smartgun ammunition could actually damage the heat exchangers (as opposed to all the explosions that go off during the chaotic extraction when the ammunition cooked off [and presumably some grenades]). Burke and Ripley explain the problem to him but I'm not really sure he completely understands the risk himself.



    So he was in a very weak position to issue the order. Any challenge to it would be hard to justify and expose his incompetence in not noticing it earlier and not adapting his plan to accommodate the reduced firepower (for example, setting up the remote guns as a fall back position should the squad be pursued). Gorman appears to be very self-conscious and unsure of himself and the early interactions with the squad (almost all negative in some way) reinforce that impression. So instead, he "doubles down" by making a blunt order, silencing any protest, and hoping for the best. He relies on the strength of Apone to enforce the command by collecting magazines instead of appealing to the team as a whole to get compliance.



    Hicks at least might have figured out why Gorman issued the order as he transitions to his shotgun. Vasquez and Drake disobey the order which is a clear indication that Gorman failed as a leader (or that they are both malcontents).







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Dec 5 '18 at 1:43









    Jenayah

    19.3k494132




    19.3k494132










    answered Jun 14 '16 at 18:52









    Jason KJason K

    1,17488




    1,17488








    • 3





      "A competent leader can get efficient service from poor troops, while on the contrary an incapable leader can demoralize the best of troops" -"Black Jack" Pershing

      – Cascabel
      Jun 14 '16 at 19:48











    • Plus, if there was any discussion to be had, that would not be the time or place (hunting unknown number and location of xenomorphs that took out the colony).

      – PoloHoleSet
      Jun 16 '16 at 16:17











    • I'd point out schlockmercenary.com/2008-11-30 through schlockmercenary.com/2008-12-04 for the counterargument Vasquez and Drake would have made -- and I'll note they held fire until /after/ the ammo bag went boom and collateral damage likely stopped being an issue.

      – Shadur
      Sep 4 '17 at 15:02














    • 3





      "A competent leader can get efficient service from poor troops, while on the contrary an incapable leader can demoralize the best of troops" -"Black Jack" Pershing

      – Cascabel
      Jun 14 '16 at 19:48











    • Plus, if there was any discussion to be had, that would not be the time or place (hunting unknown number and location of xenomorphs that took out the colony).

      – PoloHoleSet
      Jun 16 '16 at 16:17











    • I'd point out schlockmercenary.com/2008-11-30 through schlockmercenary.com/2008-12-04 for the counterargument Vasquez and Drake would have made -- and I'll note they held fire until /after/ the ammo bag went boom and collateral damage likely stopped being an issue.

      – Shadur
      Sep 4 '17 at 15:02








    3




    3





    "A competent leader can get efficient service from poor troops, while on the contrary an incapable leader can demoralize the best of troops" -"Black Jack" Pershing

    – Cascabel
    Jun 14 '16 at 19:48





    "A competent leader can get efficient service from poor troops, while on the contrary an incapable leader can demoralize the best of troops" -"Black Jack" Pershing

    – Cascabel
    Jun 14 '16 at 19:48













    Plus, if there was any discussion to be had, that would not be the time or place (hunting unknown number and location of xenomorphs that took out the colony).

    – PoloHoleSet
    Jun 16 '16 at 16:17





    Plus, if there was any discussion to be had, that would not be the time or place (hunting unknown number and location of xenomorphs that took out the colony).

    – PoloHoleSet
    Jun 16 '16 at 16:17













    I'd point out schlockmercenary.com/2008-11-30 through schlockmercenary.com/2008-12-04 for the counterargument Vasquez and Drake would have made -- and I'll note they held fire until /after/ the ammo bag went boom and collateral damage likely stopped being an issue.

    – Shadur
    Sep 4 '17 at 15:02





    I'd point out schlockmercenary.com/2008-11-30 through schlockmercenary.com/2008-12-04 for the counterargument Vasquez and Drake would have made -- and I'll note they held fire until /after/ the ammo bag went boom and collateral damage likely stopped being an issue.

    – Shadur
    Sep 4 '17 at 15:02











    3














    Interestingly, the order of events in the film's official novelisation is actually rather different. The troops are clearly aware of the implication of their actions, they just don't seem to care, believing that their personal safety is worth more than the passingly small risk of causing a containment failure.




    "Where’d you get that, Hicks? When I saw that bulge, I thought you
    were smuggling liquor, except that’d be out of character for you.
    Steal it from a museum”



    "Been in my family for a long time. Cute, isn’t it?”



    Some family. Can it do anything?”



    Hicks showed him a single shell. "Not your standard military-issue
    high-velocity armor-piercing round, but you don’t want it going off in
    your face, either". He kept his voice down. "I always keep this handy.
    For close encounters. I don’t think it’ll penetrate anything far
    enough to set off any mushrooms".







    share|improve this answer


























    • This question is asking about the movie, not its novelization. And "they just don't seem to care" is an answer (more of a comment, really) as to why they don't care, not why Gorman doesn't explain.

      – Mazura
      Jun 14 '16 at 21:01











    • @Mazura - Well, the novelisation would seem to imply that the soldiers worked out why they shouldn't be using explosive rounds on their own. That, at least, would apply to the movie as well as the novel.

      – Valorum
      Jun 14 '16 at 21:13
















    3














    Interestingly, the order of events in the film's official novelisation is actually rather different. The troops are clearly aware of the implication of their actions, they just don't seem to care, believing that their personal safety is worth more than the passingly small risk of causing a containment failure.




    "Where’d you get that, Hicks? When I saw that bulge, I thought you
    were smuggling liquor, except that’d be out of character for you.
    Steal it from a museum”



    "Been in my family for a long time. Cute, isn’t it?”



    Some family. Can it do anything?”



    Hicks showed him a single shell. "Not your standard military-issue
    high-velocity armor-piercing round, but you don’t want it going off in
    your face, either". He kept his voice down. "I always keep this handy.
    For close encounters. I don’t think it’ll penetrate anything far
    enough to set off any mushrooms".







    share|improve this answer


























    • This question is asking about the movie, not its novelization. And "they just don't seem to care" is an answer (more of a comment, really) as to why they don't care, not why Gorman doesn't explain.

      – Mazura
      Jun 14 '16 at 21:01











    • @Mazura - Well, the novelisation would seem to imply that the soldiers worked out why they shouldn't be using explosive rounds on their own. That, at least, would apply to the movie as well as the novel.

      – Valorum
      Jun 14 '16 at 21:13














    3












    3








    3







    Interestingly, the order of events in the film's official novelisation is actually rather different. The troops are clearly aware of the implication of their actions, they just don't seem to care, believing that their personal safety is worth more than the passingly small risk of causing a containment failure.




    "Where’d you get that, Hicks? When I saw that bulge, I thought you
    were smuggling liquor, except that’d be out of character for you.
    Steal it from a museum”



    "Been in my family for a long time. Cute, isn’t it?”



    Some family. Can it do anything?”



    Hicks showed him a single shell. "Not your standard military-issue
    high-velocity armor-piercing round, but you don’t want it going off in
    your face, either". He kept his voice down. "I always keep this handy.
    For close encounters. I don’t think it’ll penetrate anything far
    enough to set off any mushrooms".







    share|improve this answer















    Interestingly, the order of events in the film's official novelisation is actually rather different. The troops are clearly aware of the implication of their actions, they just don't seem to care, believing that their personal safety is worth more than the passingly small risk of causing a containment failure.




    "Where’d you get that, Hicks? When I saw that bulge, I thought you
    were smuggling liquor, except that’d be out of character for you.
    Steal it from a museum”



    "Been in my family for a long time. Cute, isn’t it?”



    Some family. Can it do anything?”



    Hicks showed him a single shell. "Not your standard military-issue
    high-velocity armor-piercing round, but you don’t want it going off in
    your face, either". He kept his voice down. "I always keep this handy.
    For close encounters. I don’t think it’ll penetrate anything far
    enough to set off any mushrooms".








    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Dec 5 '18 at 1:44









    Jenayah

    19.3k494132




    19.3k494132










    answered Jun 14 '16 at 18:36









    ValorumValorum

    405k10829493175




    405k10829493175













    • This question is asking about the movie, not its novelization. And "they just don't seem to care" is an answer (more of a comment, really) as to why they don't care, not why Gorman doesn't explain.

      – Mazura
      Jun 14 '16 at 21:01











    • @Mazura - Well, the novelisation would seem to imply that the soldiers worked out why they shouldn't be using explosive rounds on their own. That, at least, would apply to the movie as well as the novel.

      – Valorum
      Jun 14 '16 at 21:13



















    • This question is asking about the movie, not its novelization. And "they just don't seem to care" is an answer (more of a comment, really) as to why they don't care, not why Gorman doesn't explain.

      – Mazura
      Jun 14 '16 at 21:01











    • @Mazura - Well, the novelisation would seem to imply that the soldiers worked out why they shouldn't be using explosive rounds on their own. That, at least, would apply to the movie as well as the novel.

      – Valorum
      Jun 14 '16 at 21:13

















    This question is asking about the movie, not its novelization. And "they just don't seem to care" is an answer (more of a comment, really) as to why they don't care, not why Gorman doesn't explain.

    – Mazura
    Jun 14 '16 at 21:01





    This question is asking about the movie, not its novelization. And "they just don't seem to care" is an answer (more of a comment, really) as to why they don't care, not why Gorman doesn't explain.

    – Mazura
    Jun 14 '16 at 21:01













    @Mazura - Well, the novelisation would seem to imply that the soldiers worked out why they shouldn't be using explosive rounds on their own. That, at least, would apply to the movie as well as the novel.

    – Valorum
    Jun 14 '16 at 21:13





    @Mazura - Well, the novelisation would seem to imply that the soldiers worked out why they shouldn't be using explosive rounds on their own. That, at least, would apply to the movie as well as the novel.

    – Valorum
    Jun 14 '16 at 21:13











    0














    Exactly. Thanks for accurately addressing the question being asked and not straying from the subject at hand AND also not completely just either forgetting or misunderstanding the essence of a very simple question.
    I will never understand why people state the obvious as if they're living in an entirely different universe.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    JOHNNYHENRY is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.

























      0














      Exactly. Thanks for accurately addressing the question being asked and not straying from the subject at hand AND also not completely just either forgetting or misunderstanding the essence of a very simple question.
      I will never understand why people state the obvious as if they're living in an entirely different universe.






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      JOHNNYHENRY is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.























        0












        0








        0







        Exactly. Thanks for accurately addressing the question being asked and not straying from the subject at hand AND also not completely just either forgetting or misunderstanding the essence of a very simple question.
        I will never understand why people state the obvious as if they're living in an entirely different universe.






        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        JOHNNYHENRY is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.










        Exactly. Thanks for accurately addressing the question being asked and not straying from the subject at hand AND also not completely just either forgetting or misunderstanding the essence of a very simple question.
        I will never understand why people state the obvious as if they're living in an entirely different universe.







        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        JOHNNYHENRY is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer






        New contributor




        JOHNNYHENRY is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        answered 14 mins ago









        JOHNNYHENRYJOHNNYHENRY

        1




        1




        New contributor




        JOHNNYHENRY is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.





        New contributor





        JOHNNYHENRY is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






        JOHNNYHENRY is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.























            -1














            It was that they couldn't use explosive ammunition. They could only use plain rounds. Its possible that the heat exchanger could take a hit from a bullet but not an explosive one. The marines could then be seen with handguns and pump action shotguns






            share|improve this answer
























            • That may be the case, but the question is asking why he didn't explain the situation to his troops rather than simply ordering them to avoid using those rounds.

              – Valorum
              Jun 14 '16 at 17:20


















            -1














            It was that they couldn't use explosive ammunition. They could only use plain rounds. Its possible that the heat exchanger could take a hit from a bullet but not an explosive one. The marines could then be seen with handguns and pump action shotguns






            share|improve this answer
























            • That may be the case, but the question is asking why he didn't explain the situation to his troops rather than simply ordering them to avoid using those rounds.

              – Valorum
              Jun 14 '16 at 17:20
















            -1












            -1








            -1







            It was that they couldn't use explosive ammunition. They could only use plain rounds. Its possible that the heat exchanger could take a hit from a bullet but not an explosive one. The marines could then be seen with handguns and pump action shotguns






            share|improve this answer













            It was that they couldn't use explosive ammunition. They could only use plain rounds. Its possible that the heat exchanger could take a hit from a bullet but not an explosive one. The marines could then be seen with handguns and pump action shotguns







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Jun 14 '16 at 17:06









            harmingcolaharmingcola

            1,335911




            1,335911













            • That may be the case, but the question is asking why he didn't explain the situation to his troops rather than simply ordering them to avoid using those rounds.

              – Valorum
              Jun 14 '16 at 17:20





















            • That may be the case, but the question is asking why he didn't explain the situation to his troops rather than simply ordering them to avoid using those rounds.

              – Valorum
              Jun 14 '16 at 17:20



















            That may be the case, but the question is asking why he didn't explain the situation to his troops rather than simply ordering them to avoid using those rounds.

            – Valorum
            Jun 14 '16 at 17:20







            That may be the case, but the question is asking why he didn't explain the situation to his troops rather than simply ordering them to avoid using those rounds.

            – Valorum
            Jun 14 '16 at 17:20




















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fscifi.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f131835%2fin-aliens-1986-why-didn-t-gorman-explain-why-weapons-couldn-t-be-used-under-t%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Floris Gerts

            Gregoriusmis

            Lijst van personen overleden op 24 maart