Before I begin the list of military inaccuracies I noticed in the movie Jurassic World, I'd like to say I enjoyed the movie. It had me on edge just about the entire time, so I think it did it's job. But my enthusiast brain could not help to notice the good amount of military inaccuracies. Here we go.

1. The M134 GAU-17 Gatling gun on the chopper. When that heli came in with the GAU-17 hanging off the side, I actually kind of expected this one. The unrealistically slow fire rate. This thing shot like the cannon you'll find on LAVs. The GAU-17 was built so it could shoot really fucking fast. With a high concentration of rounds, it could suppress multiple enemies over a large area. Also the 7mm bullet of a minigun wouldn't be the most effective bullet against a dinosaur. A 12.7mm (50 caliber) bullet from an M2 Browning MG would be the better choice with its better penetration power. Lastly is a speculation I have but am not quite sure of. How do you put a mounted military weapon on a civilian helicopter? I know you could weld some sort of platform for the gun to be on but it would take a lot longer than what was shown in the film.

2. Launching the AT-4 rocket at the dino. In one scene, a Special Forces member tries to hit our antagonist dinosaur with an AT-4 Rocket. The 2 main things wrong with this scene is that the rocket was way too slow and...

A trained Anti Tank special forces member missed a 50 foot long target form like 30 meters away. Even if it was an unnaturally slow rocket, you can't miss that, it's huge. There's also a possibility that the AT soldier would have been injured by the rocket's concussion wave or shrapnel along with the leg of the dinosaur.

3. Why the hell would you send in ground forces as an offensive? You have a big ass, man-eating monster loose in the woods. Obviously, the first thing to do is send a whole squad of heavily armed soldiers to find it, fight it, and risk many more deaths. What should have been done was to send soldiers to guard the evacuating civilians while more helicopters are sent in to scout out the dinosaur, radio it's position, and blow the hell out of it. Preferably with AH-6's rockets. AH-6 is a chopper which can be used for scouting, troop transport, and attacking. Or you could even have a few people on the ground. They'll be below the trees and can see a lot better. They would be spread out and when one sees the enemy, they could report it the choppers. This will be more effective but put more lives are risk.

4. Dinosaurs would make for really crappy military weapons. Sure, they're fast but they don't have guns. Guns can kill pretty quickly at long ranges if you didn't know. Oh, what's that? There are a few hundred of them and you could be overwhelmed? Well stop being a slow idiot and bring out the mortars, tanks, grenades, rockets, and high RPM guns! Face it man, they'd all be dead before they get anywhere near a base or outpost. The air? Again, rapid fire weapons would be the best.

But thank god this movie had trigger discipline.

4540360
Well, half of these are less "inaccuracies" and more just really stupid decisions. After all, it was no military commander leading this effort, it was Bryce Howard, who was given a fairly stock "corporate" personality, only concerned about the bottom line and treating the dinosaurs like "assets" on a spreadsheet.
That, and I find it less ridiculous that they sent out a small squad of easily munchable security guys to hunt down the Indominus than the fact that they gave them non-lethal weapons that were completely and utterly ineffective. Seriously, they get the chance to use each article of their equipment on the I-Rex, and the only thing that even slows it down for a few seconds is the net launcher. Did somebody in the dinosaur-hunting department seriously not think that their might be a size limit to the kind of animal those devices would work on?

As for raptors being weapons, I found that the best part of the movie was Vincent D'onofrio pitching his moronic plan and watching all the other characters call him out on it. I refer you to the abridged script from The Editing Room:

VINCENT D’ONOFRIO
Hey, in my head the entire future of warfare revolves around letting dinosaurs run around eating people, clearly I’m out of my fucking mind.

4540360 Wait... did you go to a movie expecting any accuracy to reality other than the bare minimum details? Dude, no. Don't do that. Just go nom popcorn and enjoy the fiction which kind resembles reality. Hell, movies are a world where the laws of physics are subject to change as desired. They're not meant to be realistic in any way, only entertaining.

4541083
Come on, man, half the fun of cinema is going over the plot long afterwards and poking holes in the narrative!
You can still enjoy a story and then laugh at the logical inconsistencies that allowed it happen.

4541918 Sure, but it's no fun to poke holes in a good movie. It ruins the enjoyment of the story. Hole poking is best reserved for bad flicks, so you can get your 7 bucks of admission out of it.

4541922
Nonsense! Nonsense, I say!
I take the "Cracked: After Hours" view of cinema. Nothing is sacred. Dismantling movies, good and bad, are all part of the experience!
Besides, that way nobody has to fight over which movies are "good" enough to escape being picked apart.

4542047 Well duh nothing is saccrad, supernatural elements are fictional. However, a good story should be enjoyed for what it is, the time, care, and effort put into it should be respected and admired. As for what makes a good story... well personal preference.

4542071

the time, care, and effort put into it should be respected and admired.

Nah.
The way I see it, they made the movie to make a buck, and I paid to see it (despite having cheaper options available to me). They have my money, and I have their art, so we both will do with them what we will.