World War II Historian Rates 8 WWII Battles In Movies And TV | How Real Is It? | Insider
World War II historian John Curatola rates eight battle scenes in movies and television for realism.
He discusses the accuracy of World War II battle scenes from "Saving Private Ryan" (1998), starring Tom Hanks; "Dunkirk" (2017), featuring Tom Hardy; and "Band of Brothers" S1E3 (2001), with Damian Lewis. He also comments on the weaponry used in "Fury" (2014), with Brad Pitt; "Patton" (1970); and "Enemy at the Gates" (2001). Curatola analyzes the tactics displayed in "The Forgotten Battle" (2020) and "Defiance" (2008), starring Daniel Craig.
John Curatola is the resident historian at The National WWII Museum and a retired Marine Corps officer. He is also an author and a former history professor at the US Army School of Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
Editor's Note: The video at 0:56-1:10 incorrectly labelled obstacles in the water. The obstacles the expert referred to as "rotated 180 degrees" were wooden poles, and not tank stoppers. Insider regrets the error.
Find more here:
www.nationalww2museum.org
WATCH MORE HOW REAL IS IT VIDEOS:
Afghan War Veteran Rates 9 Afghanistan War Battles In Movies
• Afghan War Veteran Rat...
Military Experts Rate 70 Military Battles In Movies And TV
• Military Experts Rate ...
World War I Expert Rates 6 WWI Battles in Movies
• World War I Expert Rat...
------------------------------------------------------
#WWII #Entertainment #Insider
Insider is great journalism about what passionate people actually want to know. That’s everything from news to food, celebrity to science, politics to sports and all the rest. It’s smart. It’s fearless. It’s fun. We push the boundaries of digital storytelling. Our mission is to inform and inspire.
Subscribe to our channel and visit us at: www.insider.com
Insider on Facebook: / insider
Insider on Instagram: / insider
Insider on Twitter: / thisisinsider
Insider on Snapchat: / 4020934530
Movies Insider on Snapchat: / 9616609930
Insider on TikTok: / insider
World War II Historian Rates 8 WWII Battle Scenes In Movies And TV | How Real Is It | Insider
My dad was at Dunkirk and was on the pier which was hit, he was instructed to stand in the sea with the water up to his neck. After 8 hours he passed out. The next thing he remembers was waking up under Tower bridge on a Scottish fishing boat. He later went on to fight in north Africa and then Italy.
Wow
Incredible he managed to survive all that. Your dad was a hero 😊
He never spoke about what he did during the war but in 1969 he took us on a touring holiday across France Switzerland and Italy.. we stopped off at Dunkirk where he explained what happened. at the time there was still some second world war structures there (German I believe). That was the only time I ever saw my dad cry I was the youngest at 7 years old and didn't totally understand everything. We only just managed to cross the border at Italy as his standard atlas major broke down on the Great St Bernard pass miles from anywhere. He ended up cutting a bake bean tin up and making a carburetor gasket out of it which was just enough to get us to the border. I don't know what they teach them REMEs but he was always the 1st point of call if anyone had mechanical problems, Other kids at school used to ask me about the red marks on his cheeks I found out years later it was because of the desert Sadly he died in 1973 at the age of 53
@@andylyns6594 Bless your father for his service
So the historian was incorrect about wondering why the soldiers were standing in the water?
My father was a WWII vet who served in North Africa, Sicily and landed at Utah Beach. He hated war moves, but got to see Private Ryan prior to his passing. He said it was the most relastic film had ever seen, particularly because of the sounds. It was the first movie for him to recreate the sound of bullets, mortars and explosions in a realistic way. That "thump" of a round hitting someone was how he remembered it. It was a difficult watch for him. But very happy he saw it.
...I had the same experience with my Dad. He just said "yeah, that's what it sounded like".
Yes very true, as WWII re-enactor back in the 90s I got to talk to a lot of WWII vets who usually said exactly that.
Took my parents with my wife to see saving private ryan. My father served from north africa, Sicily, Normandy, Northern France, Belgium, Battle of the bulge and first American unit in berlin with the 2nd armored division. When the movie ended he just sat there, not saying a word. People walking out just looked at him and understood. We went for ice cream afterwards and he also said the sounds were real but the scene where the guy was stabbed to death bothered him because he said by that time in the war he carried 2 .45's, M1 carbine and 4 grenades. As a scout. Plus when the guy supplying your ammo wasn't there he was dead. He never before spoke about his experience, told stories that night. Found out years later through the VA he was awarded the Silver Star
@@cun009 Thanks for sharing, Robert. Great to hear. Glad your dad was able to see it. My dad told stories but there were certain topics you did not broach. I just recently found out some terrible things that he went through which explained a lot. HIs sister said to us many times, "Your father was never the same after the war." A fitting description for so many. Happy Thanksgiving. Stay well.
As a vet myself spr is probably the best for war sounds especially the mortars, alot of shows TV films etc have this big explosion and a boom , when infact it's a crump sound,
Band of Brothers is still my favorite, not only because of the fight scenes, but especially because of what happens on its sides - a truly masterpiece
What are you meaning “on its sides” ?
Band of Brothers doesn't show the major contribution of trans women especially black trans women.
@@andrewbarry6702 …what
BoB is my all time favourite also
@@andrewbarry6702 Yep, that's why 1917 was heavily criticised, as it did not portray the vital role of the thousands of autistic gender non-binary furries who heroically minced into machine gun fire when going over the top...
Still insane that saving private Ryan was in 1998
@Eyup Tas because it was filmed 24 years ago, and it still has some of the most realistic depictions of what WWII combat was like. It’s the same with band of brothers (although it would rank just a bit higher on my list) as they portray it better than almost all other movies. That being said, it is still Hollywood and it is a movie. Regardless their are ageless classics
@Eyup Tas It’s insane because the advancements in technology haven’t really helped cinema in the way of realism, which is counter intuitive. The 90s was the best time in cinema for special effects. A large part of that is due to the fact that CGI wasn’t (or couldn’t) be relied upon as it is now, but rather as a tool that could be used to make smaller touch ups. Please don’t read into this as anything more than a generalisation - of course there are exceptions..
@Eyup Tas but I think you already knew that tbh
@Eyup Tas 'cause CGI ain't EVERYTHING!
@@Scerotic That's just wrong in every regard. 1. There's huge advancements in the technology, like de aging De niro and Pesci in the Irishman. Or the recreating dead actors, such as Peter Cushing's Tarkin. 2. The 90s were horrible time for special effects, because everybody kept using the same people and companies. So you had the same type of explosions and unecessary sparks in everything. Not to mention, Avatar is out right now and disproving all of your nonsense about CGI...
Dunkirk's main issue, at least for me is how few men were on the beach in the movie. In reality the beach was packed and in the film there were only a few hundred men. Surely CGI could have made up for the lack of extras but they decided against it for some reason. It really took away from the scale of the undertaking of the evacuation.
For me it was how clean the beaches were, there was a massive amount of damaged or destroyed material in and around the beaches as well is the dirt and grime that would have built up with thousands of people spending days waiting the area.
I think it was more intended as a mood piece/art film, where it gives you the "feel" of what happened rather than a literal interpretation. There's sort of one boat, one airplane, a few men-- it's all kind of scaled down to the absolute minimum in a way i have to assume is intentional, since it diverts so greatly from the reality in terms of scope and details. Not even the town is damaged, so it's like it's happening in the present day, but it isn't, but the anachronism gives a particular vibe. Just the way i saw it anyway-- who knows, maybe the guy just read about Dunkirk in three minutes and everything is wrong by accident lol...
@@subnormality. well said. He focused on the quality of the scope of history instead of shock and awe of said CGI placement. It was exceptionally well done and achieves what it sets out to do by keeping the idea of Dunkirk alive.
It did seem kinda smallish
Well yeah but you have to admit that the photography was absolutely beatiful as a result.
Omaha Beach is understandably the most remembered part of Saving Private Ryan, but the most haunting part of the film for me is when the medic (Wade) is dying. Watching him realizing what is happening to him and asking them for more morphine, plus crying out for his mother is just too much for me on rewatches sometimes.
don’t forget about Mellish being (slowly) stabbed to death while begging for the German soldier to stop, during the ending battle… horrific…I still cannot watch this scene entirely 🫣
@@robincognee5325 any time I watch Saving Private Ryan I always have to skip past that scene. It's so intense and well done I just can't handle it.
@Robin Cognée yeah that is for sure the worst scene for me. What makes it worse is that kid who was the translator for their squad, and preferred to be passive, just was standing around the corner on the stairs with his weapon as his battle buddy was being slowly stabbed to death. So not only was he slowly being killed abs begging, but his squad member was right around the corner and could have saved him but was too scared.
Yeah both those scenes are responsible for me avoiding the movie.
there was also that time the US troops shoot 2 Czech ppl who were forcibly conscripted into the German army and were attempting to surrender
My grandfather was a member of the 458th Amphibian Truck Company as a 1st Lieutenant and was awarded the Croix De Guerre (along with the rest of the company) for the bravery shown on Omaha Beach on D-day. He never talked about the war while he was alive and none of us knew he was even there that day until a couple of years ago when my dad stumbled upon a certificate from the medal he received in his old army trunk. My grandpa died in 1997 and I miss him every day.
Actually the part about the MG42's in Saving Private Ryan wasn't an innaccuracy as some would think. Due to a combination of combat stress, adrenaline, and lack of proper training a lot of German soldiers just let loose with the 42's on D-Day, and many of them were in fact rendered unusable because the 42's couldn't take that kind of continuous use.
That's pretty interesting, first time I have heard of this. Do you have a source for this information?
@@shadowgod1009 It was something I learned from a staff member from a museum I visited on a road trip to Florida and mentioned a personal experience involving his father. His dad landed on Utah and helped capture a young soldier with an MG42 (I forget if he meant actually on Utah Beach or later on). The barrel was so burnt they actually had to make an effort to remove it after it cooled. The captured soldier told them he'd only been given a quick run through on the gun a couple days prior.
Source: trust me bro
@@bravesirrobin8376 The "Trust Me Bro" source can occasionally be reliable. Allow me to demonstrate: I was too young to fight in the first Gulf War. However, my uncle did. So he was around a LOT of captured Iraq soldiers. While there WERE news reports on Iraqi units surrendering en masse due to factors such as starvation, they never went into much detail. My uncle told me that Saddam Hussein had read that Vietnamese soldiers in the Vietnam war survived on just one bowl of rice per day. So, Saddam made sure his soldiers were only given one bowl of rice per day, thinking that this might somehow make his soldiers as determined as the NVA were, 20 years earlier. Could my uncle have been lying about this? Sure. Could it have been truthful and accurate? It sure seems that way. It fits the facts reported and it seems likely.
@@Raz.C didnt ask
What I like about this historian is that he gives a great tactical perspective in addition to the historical context. Most historians critique the accuracy which is great but he gives a nice military perspective as a veteran as well
I totally agree. I really appreciated his points, and even if he had some critiques he still appreciated a lot of the movies. Really great stuff.
@@Bentzel75 It was so interesting, he's very smart and educated on warfare.
@@Bentzel75 Yeah, I like how he clearly appreciated a lot about Fury or Saving Private Ryan, while also pointing out the tactical issues present in those films.
The issue is that he gives the perspective from modern U.S. warfare, whereas in WW2, they were often improvising on the ground. And there were accounts of Enemy at the Gates depiction being real (because Stalin forced citizens and penal battalions to fight unarmed), as Russians are actually bringing back those tactics in the Ukraine War nowadays.
Eh yea he does a good job but he really really likes to nitpick about stuff. The MG42 was fired for roughly 4 seconds in the Saving Private Ryan scene and he’s saying it was a 2-3 second burst which is even then not entirely accurate but eh he likes to really pick out stuff to review.
Edit: before reading my comment, if you look in the description of the video, the editors acknowledged their mistake and changed it. Whoever did the editing for the clip with Saving Private Ryan incorrectly labelled the obstacles the historian is referring to. The tank stoppers or Czech Hedgehog is redudant in which way its placed. He's talking about the wooden poles/telegraph poles jutting out on the coast being the wrong way. They should be "rotated 180 degrees" from the in film depiction because the landing craft would collide and slide up the wooden pole either capsizing the craft or detonating one of the mines that would be affixed along the length of the obstacle.
Those poles were known as Rommel's Asparagus. I always look for the orientation in movies and games, it shows who really studied their history or not.
@@sam8404 movies are just entertainment
@@borntoclimb7116 yes, nobody said otherwise.
@@sam8404 oh wow didn't know that! Quite an amusing name can't lie😂
Additionally, the photo posted at 10:49, Troops Hiding Behind Armour (1944) appears to show a Pz. 38, or could even be a Pz. II. This would lead me to suggest that this picture is also mislabelled. The scene looks like something from early Barbarossa invasion (1941). But hey, if the Germans used light armour in various troop support roles like this until 1944 or beyond, then let me know.
Band of Brothers is a remarkable piece of work, and paired with The Pacific, they show not only the grittiness and (in)humanity, but the complete randomness of the conflicts. BTW, I have been to your museum in NOLA, and it is OUTSTANDING, the way it's laid out as you travel through from the beginnings to the end just remarkable and also heartbreaking.
I was wishing there was a review of The Pacific in this. I'm assuming they did just as good a job with it as with BoB. I felt more of a connection with the characters in BoB, though. The commentary from some of the actual combatants hit me profoundly. I can't remember, but I don't *think* the producers of The Pacific did any interviews with actual veterans of that war. That would've been interesting. I've heard there were a couple glaring inaccuracies in BoB. For example, in the end of one of the episodes, it said that one of the men was KIA, when he actually made it through the war, and lived for another 20-30 years.
@@mmille10 they did with I believe 4 of them.
@@mmille10 From my memory, the Pacific isnt quite as good, but thats not really its fault. It stands very well on its own, and is better then just about anything else. Its just that Band of Brothers is a masterpiece.
@@philipdillon83 I honestly prefer The Pacific. Though I also love BoB.
@@ananaithnid7495 the new one, Masters of the Air, should be out soon. Just finished reading the book that it's based on. Can't wait to see it.
I think the movie is portraying that anyone who out ranked Hanks' character was already killed and since they landed at the wrong beach he needed to relay his actual position.
Plus, it's a way of inserting a bit of exposition into the scene so the audience can better understand what's going on.
There will always be an element of artistic licence. The main point of the scene is to depict the chaos and terror that the men are experiencing trying to run towards heavily defended positions while exposed on a beach. The disorganisation after they land and the eventual establishment of some order and the ultimate taking of the German positions at great cost. Also, explains the cruelty of these same men later. I liked that SPR didn't try to depict the allies as squeaky clean heros but as a collection of men with different temperaments in extreme conditions.
Yeah you really need context for these scenes that may not be explicit. Putting a historian in front of the screen who will therein judge every scene as if it’s supposed to be a by-the-book portrayal of certain military tactics is not the way to go in my opinion. However, whenever they bring someone in who’s an expert on a much more narrow subject, they tend to take things like that into account. But not a “military historian”
Yes, no offense to the military historian, but sometimes story telling for the average viewer needs context. Regardless, I think his point is a little over the top.
I took it that it wasn't necessarily his rank but that in no way he would be able to communicate with an Admiral
Can’t believe you had a US marine vet on and didn’t ask him to review the pacific mini series, which is based on the pacific conflict from the US marines from 1941-1945.
I wouldn’t mind a part II that covers the Pacific theater
@@itsnotrightyouknow uhhhh no. It’s also based on Eugene Sledge’s book With the Old Breed. Helmet for My Pillow was Robert Leckie. The third part of the Pacific is John Basilone, who is well documented. The two series are different. Band of Brothers focuses on brotherhood in combat. The Pacific is a commentary on the human condition when exposed to war, particularly over time. Both are amazing in their own right.
@@itsnotrightyouknow a lot of the combat was taken from Leckies and Sledges books. But the series as a whole focuses on the whole 1st marine division during the pacific conflict. You have so many different stories like BOB that had to be condensed. Like you had an episode focused on Bull or the Winters or Spiers. Not saying it’s 100% accurate but compared to a lot of other tv or films based around the same conflict.
@@itsnotrightyouknow it was based on two books. Helmet for My Pillow covered Leckie’s story. Sledge’s story was from his book With the Old Breed. While I thought The Pacific was great, I do agree that it was a bit disjointed due to the lack of connection between Leckie and Sledge. (I’ve read With the Old Breed and the show’s version of Sledge’s experience in Okinawa is highly fictionalized.)
Dude....my thoughts exactly. And to be honest, I prefer the pacific theater.
Unfortunately lots of war movie directors seem to not understand that if you downplay the enemy, you downplay the good guys as well
100%. if they put the directors through the same "education" as the actors, i think we would have better war movies. lets make method directors a real thing.
On the other hand, what many commentators forget: Most soldiers fighting in ww2 weren´t professional soldiers, especially on the german/soviet side, especially late in the war. Poorly equipped, poorly trained, and often poorly led (at least on the german side). So if anything seems unprofessional what soldiers in the movies are doing, that´s actually realistic.
No WW2 military was a purely professional force. Everybody had to rely on conscription.
Can‘t edit, so here goes. The German forces were the most professionally led of the whole war, of all combatants. Almost any other military would have collapsed in their place. They didn‘t. And now Infeelmdirty for defending Nazi German troops. Thanks, ignoramus.
@@Muschelschubs3r Not completely true the Canadians didn't use conscription forces in combat until the very end and they were as professional as the rest.
Respect to the historian for ending the video with reminding us to respect the fallen and remember the human cost. Forgive but never forget.
The guy is an idiot and not even close to being an expert with everything he got wrong.
Yes. 😔
My father in law hit the beach at Iwojima and although he never discussed it with family he did describe it to me when we were fishing. It sounded exactly like the beach scene in SPR. He was wounded and never made it off the beach.
I saw Dunkirk at a screening with a Q&A with a vet from Dunkirk. He was in tears with how much the movie reminded him of being on the beach, even all these years later. The only thing he said about the film that he felt was off was that there weren’t any where near as many planes as what was depicted. Other than that, he said it felt like being there
Kinda wish cgi was used more, coz it really looks empty, I mean the entire allied forces in the region funneled into one spot and the structures should've been pounded to rubbles but... Oh well
@@GenJuhru Yea weird that they weren't totally obliterated
Could that be due to the fact the fight was up in the clouds? Didn’t they portray that in the film how the BEF thought they had been virtually abandoned by the RAF?
@@Kingylfc123 the RAF, yes but the Luftwaffe would continue to harass and fended off by surviving AA emplacements or running out of munitions
@@GenJuhru Well, Christopher Nolan doesn't like cgi. He's famous for using practical effects for the craziest of scenes
When I was a kid, an old family friend(now deceased) who was not only a WW2 vet, but also a member of the 101st airborne regifted me an unopened box of the band of brothers series that he himself received as a gift because he didn't want to see it. I have always felt bad about how I pestered him about his WW2 experiences as a kid. That series is not only a great piece of film, but also an important lesson.
Yeah had an uncle very much the same, fought in North Africa and the Pacific. Only ever talked about it once when he was drunk
Would love a sequel to this breaking down the combat scenes in The Pacific, Flags of our Fathers, and Letters of Iwo Jima
(VN Combat Vet) It was the sound of the MG rounds hitting the tank traps on the beach that got to me. The volume of fire necessary for that manyof hits was astounding...
Heinrich Severloh, one of the German soldiers claimed to have fired 13,500 rounds over the course of the day,so if all the German MGs were firing at that kind of rate the volume of fire onto the beach must have been staggering.
@@ajb7876 the MG42 makes 1200 -1400 rounds per minute. So you need a lot of 200 rounds belts...
band of brothers is just amazing, i watch is at least 3 times a year so I must have watched it 40 times and i can just plow through it every single time. the best series ever made. I'm so psyched for the new "masters of the air"
I have not heard about Masters of the Air, please educate me about it so I can join you in being psyched. Lol
@@mystic0maggot401 its about a bomb crew in WW2. Based off : Masters of the Air: America’s Bomber Boys Who Fought The Air War Against Nazi Germany by Donald L. Miller and it's produced by the same Production company and writers for both BOB and the pasific so it's basically the 3rd show with exactly the same makers with a budget of $250million.
@@kapten-awesome I am now psyched. Lol
Greatest thing ever put on a screen IMO. I may be biased somewhat due to a relative being in the 506th😂but nevertheless
Where can you find it ? Can't find it online anywhere ?
For the defiance tank scene, it's not a Panzer IV. It's a replica Panzer III built on a Swiss Panzer 61. Aside from the barrel having a counterweight, I really like that they used a Panzer 61 instead of common tanks like the T-34 or T-55 movies usually use to build replica tanks since it has the proper 6 road wheels, similar suspension and a similar hull shape.
True a panzer iii g with a 50mm long barrel, out of date by then and most of the chassis would ave been converted to stugs or to pz iii N with a short 75mm gun. I could see units on anti partisan duties behind the front using older iiis for police work, they would have been very effective against irregular troops and civilian targets wth no anti tank capability.
@@rudithedog7534 I know the Panzer III was used into 1944 in limited use so yeah it's not out of the ballpark
Hes also wrong about the tank firing its main gun at infantry. HE shells were there to shoot at infantry and lightly armored targets. The 75mm sherman was preferred by a lot of tankers due to the superior HE shell it had since most of their fighting was vs infantry and at guns. Further he was wrong about the air burst shells. I dont know if we had them during the African campaign but raido air burst shells were invented during ww2 and were devastating against unsheltered infantry such as in a desert.
@@rudithedog7534 yeah no idea how a ww2 historian forgets to mention the Germans used older model tanks (anything from the Hotchkiss 35 to the Pz.IIIJ) for anti-partisan operations behind frontlines in the eastern front.
Also they didn't anbush the armor in that scene, they were being flushed and made a delaying tactic to allow the women and children to escape and were saved by the partisans
Love how matter of fact this historian is. No bias or spin, just historical accuracy
It's interesting to watch at least, although I would say there's some pretty heavy american propaganda in his opinions still. I took russian history in uni and there DEFINATELY was a shortage of rifles at the start of the war AND it was a common tactic to try and overrun the enemy with numbers. That particular tactic was part of the reason why they lost their monarchy. Despite what he say's, everyone in the world who has studied russian history knows they've often had rifle shortages ever since they've been invented, although intentionally sending troops into battle while "gun-sharing" was nearly solely a Tsar Alexander 2 move. The only reason there was accounts of it happening at the start of WW2 and the battle of Stalingrad was due to inaccurate reports with everyone too afraid of being black bagged to say "X unit retreated/surrendered/deserted." or that the supplies wouldn't be there when he wanted them, so the commanders just followed orders whether or not they had been supplied yet. You can look this all up yourself, there's still primary and secondary sources everywhere to verify it. So while it sounds like he's well versed, the rest of the world tends to disagree on a few of his very american centric views. While you can't blame a guy for being born in a country which deifies it own military while producing heavy propaganda about other nations, I'd take it all with a grain of salt. It's very similar to how he implied the landing scene from Saving Private Ryan was very accurate despite showing a casualty rate FAR higher than on that particular beach, or how every single other allied country had far less resistance - so in reality, it wasn't as accurate as the score he gave since that was the very WORST of the fighting AND had the death toll dialed up to 12 out of 10. Gotta take people's biases into account
@@tanepukenga1421 to be fair, the beaches that the Americans landed were the most heavily defended, seeing as the Americans had the most numbers and no shortage of soldiers, it made sense that they attacked the most heavily defensible positions. However, to state that the other allied forces didn’t also meet stiff resistance is just ludicrous on his part.
If he was biased how would you know?
It completely leaves out the allied trans women who made up 70% of all front line soldiers not to mention the German army been 60% black
This guy wasn’t always that accurate.
Band of Brothers has to be up there with the greatest miniseries of all time - the scenes but most of all the time taken to build the characters and their special relationships is unrivalled - and only enabled in 10 one-hour episodes - I must have watched it 10 times over now. The Pacific didnt come close to matching it sadly IMO. Would be amazing if they did a similar HBO series on WW1 and/or Vietnam (they did a great job with Generation Kill and the Iraq War). As an aside - if you have not seen the Ken Burns Vietnam War Documentary - watch it. The most amazing, shocking and depressing depiction of war - I cried like a baby at the end.
Masters of the Air... being made by the same team, so I've understood.. hopefully will be out this year.
@Robbieboy1976 - I had the same reaction as you did when "The Pacific" came out, but after watching it again, it grew on me. Of course, it helps if you already know some of the history of the war in the Pacific. At least, try and read Eugene Sledge's superb memoir "With the Old Breed at Peleliu and Okinawa," which is one of the finest books of its kind ever written. And anything you can about the campaigns ~ Guadalcanal, Peleliu, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc. as well as stuff on Leckie and Basilone. Unlike "Band of Brothers," which concerns a whole unit, "The Pacific" is centered on three Marines: Gunnery Sergeant John Basilone, PFC Robert Leckie, and Corporal Eugene Sledge. Two survived the war; one ~ Basilone ~ did not. The vastness of the conflict in the Pacific posed a problem for the film-makers, how to condense the story into something manageable and that would make sense in ten episodes. Looking back at it now, I find that my regard for the series has gone up considerably. I am most of all happy that the series was made at all, given that a decade passed before it hit screens and it was almost too late for many veterans of that war in terms of participating in the making of the series, seeing it, and so forth. In short, I guess what I am saying is that if you judge "The Pacific" on its own merits, and not next to "Band of Brothers," it rises to the job of telling that story. Your mileage, of course, may vary as they say.
Band of Brothers did a much better job telling the story because it stayed with the same unit throughout the story. The Pacific felt disjointed and was all over the place with the story not giving you enough time to build an attachment with the people being portrayed. Just as you are getting acquainted with a character they jump to another and so on and so on. Band of Brothers took you from paratrooper training with Easy Co. to the bitter cold in Bastogne to Hitler's eagle's nest and at the end you felt like you had fought with Easy Co. almost every step of the way. This was not the case with the Pacific. I would have loved a more cohesive story. If they would have stuck with a single character or unit through the whole series it would have been much better story wise.
@@frankhdz - Hi Frank. Your comments mirror how I felt when the series first came out. I liked "The Pacific,' but was a bit let down by how the writers chose to tell the story. However, over time and repeated viewings, I have come to regard it more highly and now like it a lot on its own merits. But in order to arrive at that conclusion, I had to step back and look it independently of BoB. "Band" held together so well, IMHO, largely thanks to historian Stephen Ambrose, Ph.D. - the author of the book upon which the series was based, and the consultant for the series. Ambrose, in his work on the war in Europe, had been fortunate-enough to come across the men of Easy, and realized what a tremendous find they were in terms of historical potential. The story-telling potential almost sold itself to Hollywood, I would imagine, it was so compelling. Ambrose, Spielberg, et al. were also fortunate to climb aboard public interest in WW2 and D-Day which were then reaching a crest in the 1990s with the 50th anniversary of the invasion in 1994 and afterwards. The public was ready to hear their story, and the survivors who'd been there were ready to talk about it. Some of them, anyway. "The Pacific" came about a decade later, and the conditions were quite different. We are fortunate that the series was made at all, given how many of the survivors had passed away by then. Eugene Sledge, one of the three principal main characters of the series, had already died by the time it was aired, to name one example. As far as sticking with one group of men, the series sort of does it, by focusing on John Basilone, Robert Leckie and Eugene Sledge and their comrades in arms. I wish someone would make a mini-series about the naval campaign for Guadalcanal. The one which is hinted at by the scene showing the Battle of Savo Island being waged at night, as seen at a distance by the Marines ashore on Guadalcanal. A suggested basis for it would be James Hornfischer's superb book, "Neptune's Inferno," which covers six separate battles fought in the seas around the Solomon Islands in the latter half of 1942 and early 1943.
The tanks on both sides in Patton where actually Patton tanks from the 1950's. So basically that tank battle scene was Patton commanding Patton tanks shooting at Patton tanks.
Particularly M48 Pattons for anyone curious. There were actually 4 technically different tanks in a row called the Patton. The M46 Patton, M47 Patton, M48 Patton and M60. The M60 didn't officially have a General's name on paper, but it is (rghtfully imo) known widely as the M60 Patton.
Both sides were played by Spanish troops using their normal tanks since filming in Francoist Spain was cheap.
The Audio at 11:07 has a little problem. But the Video is very good nonetheless.
Yo I thought I was tripping
That messed me up for a second lmao
i just thought my mushroom high was starting to kick in
I thought there was something wrong with my PC or browser, good to know it's not
Thought I had an issue with the vid!
Your assessment here, I will give you respect. The stories I heard over the years from my Grandfathers, Fathers and Uncles (Sparingly told until late in their lives) matches up. My VN stories I am writing down for my Grandkids. I have titled it "This is NOT a video game". Thank you for your honesty.
we need more of this guy. Love his way of explaining
One big problem with WW2 movies made by major studios is that they want "everybody in the shot," thus men, tanks, or aircraft will be much closer together than they were in actuality. There are some exceptions but most do this "bunching up "
Like a comic book moment kinda shot.... the Avengers assembling if you will
that's for 2 reasons mainly, 1 for the sense of scale and dramatization that is fervently present in Hollywood and 2 it's because it is really hard to capture a good shot with attention to detail (that being of the individual events happening to said soldiers) with a spread out formation.
You're right and the thing is they know it too. how do you show how deadly a dug in German machine gun is when you can barely see the flash in actuality as its several hundred yards away. They talk about this in filming it and they intentionally condense it so you can see it on video even though they know its inaccurate literally it better portrays how it felt for the audience. I think of the scene of the American machine gun in saving private Ryan at the end. you see German soldiers walking up the piles of rubble like 30 feet away. there's no way they would be that close, but if they were more accurate say 200 feet away you'd never see them on the screen. Its intentional to make it effective on screen.
These days its also lack of imagination of whats possible. Tank action like in that scene from Fury (and also the fight with the Tiger) could be more accurately depicted if they use more aerial shots. That way you can spread the tanks out and still have them all in the shot while also showing how these maneuver elements would circle around the threat. Then cut to individual tanks for Hollywood the action and if necessary, sprinkle in some more aerials. And when I say "these days" its because drone shots are a lot cheaper than helicopter shots. There are drones large enough to carry digital cinema cameras, after all. But it is easier to just cram everything in one place and pretend a battle line was/is a thing.
that could happen but not in a large scale or as shown in the movies\ in real life you could die from shock after getting hit in the shoulder or leg but not all the time did this happen (:
Thank you for pointing out the errors in Enemy at the gates. That movie has done more to misinform people about the state of the Soviet army at that time than perhaps any other piece of media.
The whole point of the movie was to portray soviet war propaganda. Bob Hoskins character. That's the perspective of the movie, so it's a bad faith criticism to say it's not an accurate movie when it was never supposed to be.
@@RichO1701e Nevertheless, it's used as a credible resource for the uncritical eye and shaped the public perception of the Soviet military.
One rifle in two is the most bullshit. The Soviets had millions of old Mosin bolt action rifles.
@@literalantifaterrorist4673 Mhmm, agreed on the public perception part. Regardless of the filmmaker's intentions, lots of audiences walked away still thinking that the film accurately depicted how the Soviets functioned then, even though it's a far cry from the truth.
Yes and no. The tactics being used are nonsense, and the whole '4 men share 1 rifle'-thing isn't true, but the one thing I would argue that scene does depict fairly well is how little regard Soviet leadership had for the lives of their soldiers. (Very little has changed in that regard.) The Purges had a knock-on effect, because many lower ranked officers didn't dare question orders they knew were a bad idea, because then they might get purged themselves. That's part of the reason why casualties in the Red Army were so high in WWII. Zhukov stood out - and was very popular in the USSR - precisely because he _did_ try to minimize his own casualties wherever he could.
Watched Saving Private Ryan years ago , on the way out of the theater I had the honor of meeting a Canadian vet who had landed on Juno Beach !
There’s another video where Nicholas Moran, a former tank officer had reviewed Fury. He reviewed a different part where one of the Shermans in a convoy were destroyed leading to an ambush which is accurate. He also mentioned the base of fire/maneuver element which also didn’t happen in Fury. Edit: He also reviewed that same part where there’s tanks in the open field, and he said that the German PAK 40 misses the tanks in such short range. And he said the reason why the infantry are behind the tanks even if they’re loud is because they’re in an open field which is vulnerable to infantry due to enemy snipers when they’re spaced out. He gave that scene a 9 like the last scene from Fury that he reviewed.
When a "lowly" Captain is the highest ranking survivor in the fray, he most definitely DOES get on that radio and tell the Colonels and Generals just how badly the pooch has been gaped.
Exactly, it's pretty standard
He is the dad that all dad's must beat in WWII trivia
John Mulvaney's dad can do it
Al Murray?
@@jackspence6061 loved his tour from Normandy to Berlin in ww2 us jeep
My son's dad will give it a crack...
Great video , I really enjoy watching reviews of war movies from the perspective of someone who served in the military themselves. 😁👍
My father fought in Sicily, Italy, and Holland with the 1st CDN Inf Div. Of all the fighting, it was the Scheldt, that gave him nightmares. He was pinned down in a partially flooded polder with his whole company for three days. The Germans had MG42s setup for grazing fire, any movement would bring mortar and machine-gun fire. And at night, the pigs came..... my father never ate pork for the rest of his life.
Good Muslim.
Pigs?
Your father is one of our heroes.
@@anthonyparadiso1a wild pigs eat anything. Including both living, wounded, and dead people. Bodies lay where they fell and then the pigs come to feast.
@@lucamckenn5932 wouldnt expect wild pigs there, no forests, flooded lands.
In regards to the clips from Defiance. The tank is a Panzer Mark III with a long 50mm cannon this tank was beginning to be fazed out as the Panther and Tiger was becoming much more prevalent, so a Pz III AusF J as shown in the clip would most likely have been used in suppressing uprisings in the rear. The Commander being outside the tank: Otto Carius said this perfectly "A Commander needs to be outside on his hatch so that he can see where the enemy is. Ivan likes to drive button up so he can't see you until it is too late, while buttoned up Ivan explodes with a powder barrel." So the German Tank Commander is actually follow German Manuel on Armor Positioning.
I'm assuming this guy mainly focuses on the US side of things. More like a US army historian. Don't think he knows much about the eastern front or the german army in general to be honest. He gets a lot wrong to say he's the "resident WW2 historian at the national WW2 museum"
And his comment of 'You don't shoot at infantry with the main gun'... Like that's what half the howitzer and short 75 armed tanks were for, shooting at infantry and infantry positions with HE. Not their best expert video by a long shot.
hollywood's dum dum Portrayal of there favorite thing
BoB is by far in my opinion, as he says, the greatest WW2 documentary/film ever, hands down. Nothing else even comes close.
What about the Pacific
guy: *points out nothing but inaccuracies* also guy: “very accurate, 9/10”
The inaccuracies he pointed out were minor.
A respectful thank you for your opinion about "Enemy at the gates" - a movie apparently designed to discredit the USSR and popularized inaccurate and disrespectful myths. I do have sympathies for the USSR, which is the homeland of my family, yet i'm not a hardcore supporter. i simply stand for historical accuracy and respectful depiction of our ancestors. Hopefully we will get more realistic, immersive movies, and not politicized hollywood BS like this
The sniper in real life from enemy at the gates actually volunteered to go to Stalingrad.
My only guff with is his description of the Russians not just throwing waves of people. Not necessarily in Stalingrad. But 8.6 million dead Russian soldiers might disagree. Double the casualties of the Germans. But the Germans were fighting 2 other world powers too. Only way they pushed the Germans back is waiting for winter then throwing 100s of thousands of troops at the problem. Russia wasn’t known for sophisticated battle tactics.
@@stevievannailinpalin4583 LMAO who would one believe, this guy from the comments, or a WW2 historian? I'd stake my life on the historian.
@@stevievannailinpalin4583 Hmm, it seems to me not only Germans tried to conquer the USSR. Italians, Romanians, Finns, Magyars and so on and so forth. Add their losses. And, as a matter of fact, German losses against other great Powers are miserable comparing to the Eastern Front. Russia is not known for sophisticated tactics and that is why they took Ukraine and then Belarus - within months (in summer). Just luck, I guess. And human waves, of course. And shooting into their backs, indeed.
One of the things that I've really noticed from these experts review bits are the differences in opinion. I've seen the same clips reviewed across videos and channels, and virtually every reviewer gives a different rating. I think that it has more to do with subjective standards (e.g., how many points does one dock for a clip that's missing the technical details?) and personal perspective (a soldier and historian might look at a clip differently,) but it probably also illustrates some of the disagreements that exist within a given field. Interesting stuff.
The numbers are meaningless, I really only look at what they object to.
@@Justanotherconsumer Some of the objections seemed poorly worded for a historian, which made me question his knowledge. He kept saying "should" and "would have", when given these are documented events they either happened or they didn't.
@@Ray-wy4kq documented events does not mean it wouldn't be embellished, or propagated to give a much more favorable approach to the situation. That's the whole point of learning history, decipher the biases, try to get rid of them, and give an objective view of the situation.
@@astrosherlock374 Or you could simply say you don't know instead of conjecturing.
@@Ray-wy4kq History is entirely based on historical accounts with embellishment and biases. Nothing is solid, everything is in the air. Thus "should have" or "would have". Detailed accounts also have biases, simply put.
Went to the theater to see Saving Private Ryan, and within 10 minutes, at least 10-15 people got up and walked out. It wasn't a large theater, so it was noticeable. Too intense for them.
Old veterans of that beach landing have said the only thing missing was the smell of diesel.
Thanks for all the insight! Very much enjoyed the video!
How did they not include "The Pacific"? That miniseries was amazing.
Wow. Did not know the men who stormed Normandy had to walk that far to the beach. That’s literally walking the line of Death
Another thing that was incorrect
If I recall, this was a conscious choice by the Allied planners. The Germans were expecting landings to take place at high tide (shortest walk), so they chose to land instead at low tide - longer walk, but maintains the element of surprise
they actually went further, it was closer to 300-400 yards, not 100-200
@@marcarseneau4207 the reason for attacking at low tide was not surprise but to avoid the beach obstacles. The air force was supposed to have bombed the beaches, to eliminate some of the defenses and provide bomb craters for the troops to use for cover. Unfortunately the bombers missed their targets, dropping their bombs to far inland. Demolition teams were supposed to clear lanes thru the obstacles as the first wave went in, enabling larger craft to land troops later as the tide came in.
I went to Normandy with the cadets and the tour guide had three cadets run from the waterline to the shingle. It was a long distance
Great assessments. Loved pointing out the inaccuracies yet in some cases overall giving a better score. One movie missing...Kelly's Heros... that would have been fun. At least...vs say Patton...they tried to make a Tiger look like a Tiger.
This guy has a next level of detail and expertise among military historians. Knows every company in every battle. Very cool to listen to
You think he knows it or just looked it up / researched it for this interview?
Except he said they were British soldiers at scheldt when it was a Canadian operation with some British and polish units attached
4:20 there's just many of these little moments where he says these things with such conviction, you don't really think about it. but quite a few times he's been objectively incorrect. They did "save their bacon". That is specifically why Cpt. Thomas P. Mulvey was relieved of his command. F fell, exposing D, with the Eagles left to defend alone. He somehow correctly identifies this chain of events yet claims the 29th infantry and 5 dozen tanks from Com Command A didn't offer resolution to the retreat which only just had been rectified. The counterattack alleviated that pressure leading to German withdraw and more critically, bridged the link of Omaha and Utah forces. Another good example is 1:43. Not sure what he was thinking here aside from maybe he heard someone else incorrectly say it combined with I don't think he actually watched the full scene. But there are PLENTY of depictions that prove what happened here was correct. Captain Ralph Goranson along with many captains had to coordinate with ships re: their location. They would be using radio operators via "shore party". What's not shown in this specific video and is editing incorrectly is the fact that Hanks is on radio & declared "CATF" twice. But Goranson's shore party counterpart was KIA. Thus, he had to pick up radio and communicate position. He certainly wasn't speaking to CATF. but it's never depicted as such. in fact, the radio doesn't even work. he isn't able to make that call. BUT had the radio not been shot, that would have been the correct thing to do to report position should radio operators be unavailable with the CATF call simply to be relayed properly. He wasn't "talking" to anyone. Ironically his own confusion is an excellent portrayal of the hectic nature of the combined landing assault in some areas. & the ones he's gotten very right, he's literally used verbatim verbiage from other videos much like this - e.g., the "School of thought" sequence re: Fury. I mean, there were a couple full sentences impressively identical to Moran's video you did a few months back. Unsolicited reco: consider giving talking points that you don't need condescend and correct the film to substantiate your historian title. You can correct sure but the point could be more focused on how to elaborate further on well documented pieces of the film.
I agree with this comment. The cracks start to show when he said ‘it doesn’t show how they got up there’ when it actually shows a few clever tricks being used in the movie like blasting the barbed wire and the gum stick mirror. They even have Molotovs in saving private Ryan which impresses me as far as accuracy goes, you’re going to use whatever you got to keep the heat on the bad guys whenever your government issued weapons dry up. And there was the language barrier/translator drama as another plus to the movie in terms of accuracy.
@@lindseyspencer6982 He also says that the tank wouldnt fire its main gun at infantry which is pure horse hockey. HE shells are there for a reason and many US tank commanders actually perfered the 75mm to the 76mm because the 75 had a superior spread with its HE shells and the tanks were mainly fighting infantry and at guns.
Also he mentions Tom Hank's rank in radioing Command, but I thought it was clear that their commander was killed on the beach, so he's assumed command as the highest ranking officer.
To add to the issue, he mistakes the Panzer III with a Panzer IV, that was indeed used in anti partisan combat in 1944, the tank looks accurate enough, it was quite obsolete for 1944 and was sent to the back row with other obsolete vehicles. It's funny he comments the Panzer IV as incorrect and not looking right, yet he doesn't say the same about patton using... Well,, Patton's for both sides
@@joewelch4933 this is what I was thinking, nice to have someone confirm this.
Yes, thank you for covering the myths about the Soviet Army in the Enemy At the Gates. The movie "Brest Fortress" made by Belarussian film makers is also a really good movie for analysis that would be interesting to see in the future
Brest, a polish town occupied by Soviet Union after Soviet invasion on Poland in 1939. A place of a famous soviet-german victory parade on September 39.
@@jaszaesel5390 so famous, literally noone has heard of it
Brest was not a Polish town - it was a Jewish-Russian town that Poland grabbed in the chaos of Russian empire collapsing. And what is most famous about it is the brutal, desperate and heroic month-long defense of the Brest fortress by besieged and completely surrounded Red Army soldiers against German onslaught.
Fascinating hearing your expert assessment of these various movies. Really changed my perception of what the movie showed and how things really played out. Really appreciate all the knowledge. Thank you.
I absolutely love these historical comparisons. Keep it up!
I kind of thought he would share his thoughts on the series The Pacific,too. Saving Private Ryan followed by Band of Brothers and the in the end The Pacific, could be seen as a WW2 trilogy by Steven Spielberg. A bid sad of the fact that he missed the bloodiest conflict of WW2.
The pacific was at least for me more brutal ,Band of brothers was a good tv show but The pacific was way more accurate description of war.
Yea, I'm pretty sure he's well versed in USMC history.
I wish the pacific had narrowed its focus a bit more. You follow 3 different characters that didn't really interact, plus had all the sections of back in the states
@@retrogradebolide2198 I think the problem with The Pacific was that the actors weren't that top-notch, maybe except for Rami Malek when compared with those in Band of Brothers. On a personal note, the Gunnery Sergeant in it was my favourite character, and I think he should have had way more screentime than he actually had.
With the Old Breed At Peleliu and Okinawa is one of the most metal books out there not only is horrifically violent its also very racist which is understandable given how awful the Japanese soldiers were but it usually means people are too scared to make books, games or movies portraying such a truly disgusting and brutal theater of operations.
Thanks for your professional insight. Very interesting. My grandfather was stationed on Tinian. He was working with B29s and something else he was not allowed to talk about.
Da bombs.
Tinian was the staging area for the nuclear bombs dropped on japan
Great analysis, really knowledgeable and informative
what an accurate and detailed observation, this is quite fun to watch
The leading bullets in air combat is a very good point. A top ace in the pacific theater that flew the P-38 said he took the tracers out of his ammo. He said he would lead the Zero then walks back the string of bullets into the plane. With tracers the Zero pilot would see he was under attack and evade but without the tracers it gave the P-38 pilot enough time to hit the Japanese.
Absolutely right in reference to Defiance and the use of tanks. The Germans DID send tanks to the Balkans but they were often captured tanks from other campaigns which were considered substandard. French Char B.1 Bis and some of the Renault and Hotchkiss tanks were pressed into service in these areas.
I remember a study done some time ago that found that tracers had a different flight trajectory than regular rounds. They actually only gave a rough approximation of where the other rounds were going.
This is really interesting but makes perfect sense, I'm just thinking about how different point of impact can be going from 55grain to 77 grain bullets out of a rifle, I imagine shooting tracer rounds is going to be quite different in BC and balance being hollowed out in the back with a incendiary element in it, it's just not going to fly the same as a FMJ even if the grain weight is the same. I'm actually curious to try to shoot some 5.56 tracers out at 200-400 yards and see how they fly, then again I don't know where I could do that, most ranges won't allow tracers due to the fire hazard.
This is exactly what I’ve been waiting for 🤯
The problem I had with the airfight in Dunkirk is that it is ridiculous that a spitfire would just continue fighting as a glider. A spitfire is not a good glider and could not glide around for a few minutes and still meaningful fight - it would go down quite quickly. And second for all the heroism the british pilot showed there: he was captured and thus out of the war while he would have been potentially much more useful had he returned to Britain to fight another day.
That pilot was Edmund Blackadder. He got himself captured so that he could spend the rest of the war in the relative safety of a POW camp.
@@leobuscaglia5576 : ....He then had his finely laid plan scuppered, by the entrance of Flashheart "WOOF!" 😉
That was the only scene where i feel the movie fell into the classic hero trope. A stuka dives with a few hundred kph, i think it's extremely unrealistic that a spitfire which has been gliding for a while would still be able to intercept that.
We weren't there it's easy to judge what a soldier would do I to would have fought until I ran out of gas for it would have saved hundreds to fight another day
@@leobuscaglia5576 safety of a pow camp you must be kidding most died of hunger in those camps or worked to death
I wish you would do a deeper dive on all of these, particularly Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers. There were a lot of battles to cover in both. The final scene of Saving Private Ryan is epic, and I would love to see how accurate that portrayal was.
It was in a made up town lol
@@ultimatestuff7111 the whole movie was made up... what's your point?
During "Defiance" he mentions nothing about a shell exploding two feet away from the character, with a tree next to him, absolutely shredded: he would be.
“Fury” is the rare movie where 5 out of 6 extras on the BluRay were worth watching *before* the movie. The historical equipment that was used was absolutely astonishing to see… like the infamous panzer scene, which used the only running model in existence (only one other still exists, but it’s not running). The closed meeting between the cast and the veterans… that would’ve been something. Yes, there were a few accuracy sacrifices made… which stood out all the more in the movie’s overall accuracy.
listening to tankers from the north african desert war they feared the 88's because the rounds skipped and if the round hit a tank the tank was dead. how he described the sound of the 88 round was chilling.
I first saw "Saving Private Ryan" in a surround sound cinema in Dubai. I have never been so scared in my life as I was during the opening scene. I felt I was there.
Lol the echo at 11:05 had me dying
Nitpick- the vismodded German tank is actually depicting a late production Panzer III and does a pretty bang up job of it. Also as far as infantry talking to tanks goes that's true as a generalization but the M4s shown had telephones installed by mid 1944 precisely to let troops do that.
Fury mainly depicts the emotions of war imo. Shows how fast someone grows up. The Pacific was my favorite mini series based off WWII
Just wish the "Letters from Iwo Jima" and the "Flags of Our Fathers" was also in this.
My grandfather who served in ww2 was one of the first guys to storm Omaha Beach he turned 23 on d day he served throughout the whole war he served in the 1st infantry division US army from 1941 to 1953 he's 101 years old now
That was terrific…. Thanks for sharing!
i'd like to see more from John Curatola that was well explained, and agreed band of brothers is well done as an entertainment peace while keeping true to the history!
Glad to see he liked the accuracy of the Forgotten Battle, a piece of filmmaking that captured the miserable conditions the Canadians & Brits faced fighting on the flooded shores of Holland.
The MG42 would overheat but all you had to do was a quick barrel change. They would usually have 3 or 4 spare barrels with one crew. A well trained crew could have the gun firing again in less than 2 seconds. Wouldn't cause a huge issue like he said
In fairness, the doctrine was to switch with each reload, so you were *supposed* to get the barrel to last through the full 250 rd. belt. That and a lot of the guys manning the Atlantic Wall weren't exactly well trained.
The Atlantic Wall was severely understaffed in that region, so many positions simply didn't have a full crew available to quickly change barrels. Some guns were manned by a single soldier.
The MG 42 was only issued with one spare barrel, others could be picked up as other 42s were damaged, etc. His point was the very high rate of fire laid out by the MG 42 caused rapid heating and you did not want to damage a barrel like that when you might need it again really soon. In addition to the noise and ammunition drain.
@@wills2140 lMG groups and sMG platoons had more than one spare barrel per MG
Thank you for your service
Love the historian, bring him on more often!
I think in the Patton movie, the artillery detonating above the ground are supposed to be VT fuzed rounds. The VT fuze was developed during WWII but worked so well detecting via radio (radar) its proximity to the ground it was kept somewhat secret. It's possible they were provided to the artillery units as test fuzes, but I think not all that likely as in 1943 they were really, really new. They would have been field tested and used in battles with a high probability of success so the enemy wouldn't be able to recover undetonated fuzes. As with most movies, it's difficult to replicate what a real detonation looks like with high explosives (mainly because it doesn't have the really cool visual effects). As such, you see the popping of the "VT fuzed" rounds. In reality, you cant really tell the difference between a VT fuze going off at 20-60 meters versus a contact fuze because they are moving so fast and the detonation is so quick especially at the distance most forward observers operate at. I just know the VT fuzes can be squirrely. Had a battery firing from behind us toward a series of targets. We were on a rise doing our forward observer duties, looking at the impact area. Suddenly...BOOM... directly overhead as one of the rounds detonated. It was pretty high when it went off but we chalked it up to the VT fuze detecting the rise in elevation of the ground below it.
Actually the VT fused rounds were used mostly in the pacific on ships, They were worried that if used on land in Europe the Germans would make such fuses of their own causing far more Allied casualties. Not only that but had the Germans had such fuses for their 8.8cm AA guns far more bombers would have been shot down.
the VT fuses didn't exist at the time of this battle. I think they only reach combat units 1 year later.
@@samuelgordino Point is though that the expert would be wrong about airburst rounds. He was also very wrong about tanks not using their main gun vs infantry, they most certainly did, thats what HE shells are for.
Napolean used air burst rounds as simple as fuse length at that time.
@@jeffreyheronemus1917 Actually It was the British who used them 1st at Waterloo. The problem was the gunner had to guess how long to make the fuse sometimes they would air burst other times thry would hit the ground giving times for the soldiers to duck for cover.
I'd love to see him covering korean war, which is incrediblely underrated.
Another good entry in this series, bravo
This was a very detailed and excellent video. I always enjoy when a true expert shares knowledge.
The British Hurricane and Mk1 Spitfire generally had about 15-16 seconds worth of constant .303 browning machine gun fire. The Germans did fly in pairs called a ‘rotte’ and usually those 2 pairs flew in formation as a 4 or ‘schwarm’.. This was generally a looser and much more effective formation than the tight British ‘vic’ formation of 3 aircraft. The RAF started to adopt the German formations after the BoB referring to it as the ‘finger 4’
As an Englishman and someone who met and grew up around survivors of Dunkirk the depiction in that awful film of the beaches and the overall battle are the most INSULTING depictions of any battle in film history, Look at any photo's of the beaches and they were covered in burning wrecked vehicles, the dead of Britain France and Belgium and the fact they don't show the heroes from Belgium and France who fought to the death in the rearguard and their sacrifice is appalling, the best movie depiction is the original b/w film that had actual veterans take part and showed a realistic portrayal of the scale and devastation of Dunkirk. If I ever meet the Director I will kick his F*ing head in for DISGRACING the memory of those who died on all sides.
Yeah agreed, the aviation and some of the scenes on/around the ships were great but they made a huge mistake actually shooting it on site in dunkirk
lol imagine going to jail because bad man director hurt my feelings 😭 😂
Both my grandfather's survived wars. 1 was on an army recon team in korea. The other was on a navy ship in ww2. My grandfather who fought in korea would tell me war stories when I would sleep over. He never told my mom or uncle any.. Watching this looking at my 2 little son's! God bless America!!!
Im from New Orleans. Thank you for everything you do, for the WW2 Museum.
Whenever anyone talks about how "That's not how US armor works" in Fury I just recall the part where they say that they requested support and more tanks but were denied, one was killed in an ambush, and they lost more men before the start of the film and ask why they're being sent in so few number.
What about "The Big Red One", made by someone who was very much in the battles of WWII. Highly underrated
1:25 - Former gunner here (m60 & 240B): Glad he mentioned the problem with long MG bursts. It looks cool on TV, but in real life you will overheat the gun which potentially can warp the barrel or even lead to a runaway gun. Spot on sir!
Very true. However, the MG42 had a spring-loaded internal barrel which could be shot out in reverse once over-heated allowing for quick replacement. Of course, they would've need a lot of barrels.
These weren't front line experienced troops. They had a cushy job were probably very inexperienced and were not mentally prepare for what was rolling towards them,. Even alied soldiers, part of the scene of an awesome force coming at them were overwhelmed by the allied juggernaut. They were terrified and melted more than one barrel that day I'm sure. Even swapped out, how many barrels would they have and how long for them to cool down enough for reuse? You only have so much water in your canteen and bladder for emergency cooling
Band of Brothers is a masterpiece. Probably the best TV series of all times
Well its hard to compare TV series with eachother...But I would say as far as WW2 related TV shows or movies go, its a must watch along with The Pacific.
Insider should make a compilation of WWI and have a WWI historian review them. One In particular I would like to see would be "All is Silent on the Western Front" which depicts the German soldier's experience during WWI.
All Quiet, not Silent.
They did
Saving private Ryan will forever be 1 of the best movies of all time so many legendary actors that you just felt like you was really at the war
My uncle was at Dunkirk yes they stood in the water for a long time and he was affected by this was sent to Ireland to recover it’s not a near the end of the war are used to drive up and down the convoys repairing the trucks
This guy is my favorite out of everyone you've had on this series, his attitude is a goal.
According to Otto Carrius, German tank commanders tendered to go into a fight heads out, the Russians indeed buttoned up. And he attributed this to one of the main reasons the Russians had such high tank losses.
True but once under concentrated small arms fire you would think that they would THEN button up and rely on their own infantry support or reposition where it isn't as big of an issue and then reopen ... I can see being heads out for better visibility in tank v. Tank engagements for better visibility especially since tanks were notorious for lack of visibility.
@@karlsenula9495 Usually the commander would indeed button up as the threat level rose or go semi protected with the hatch somewhat open. German tanks still had much better commanders cupolas and vision ports together with their better communication equipment.
Two slight corrections which others might have covered so apologies if they have: 1) “this is the days before radar.” He may have meant internal radar within the plane in which case for 1940 that is accurate. However, there was ground based radar at that time within England which they used to direct fighter squadrons onto enemy formations. So would be better to say that planes didn’t carry internal radar at that time and were given coordinates of where the enemy were. 2) in Defiance I don’t believe that that is a Panzer IV but I believe that the tank depicted is actually meant to be a Panzer III. Main identifier is the longer thinner gun with no muzzle brake. Either a J, L or M variant at a guess.
this is probably the best historian insider ever got in here rating these war movies
don't want to question our historian credibility, but I'm almost certain, that the tank in 8:46 is a PZ III L, with an odd muzzlebreak and odd chasis, but still quite good for PZ III in war movies. not even close to PZ IV
@@flynncarter229 I'm assuming this guy mainly focuses on the US side of things. More like a US army historian. Don't think he knows much about the eastern front or the german army in general to be honest. He gets a lot wrong to say he's the "resident WW2 historian at the national WW2 museum"
4:58 my fav part. Guys in water… no boat…
Oh I love it because you give my fav war series good rating . "Band Of Brothers" is really really good series . It will be in my heart and forever ❤️❤️
The MG-42 was actually meant for long bursts. It had a quickly changeable barrel. Standard doctrine was while you reloaded (after about 100-250 rounds) you would also swap barrels, so to never overheat
Yeah hence the 'zipper' denomination that I've seen floating around in books and interviews. The bursts combined with the insane rate of fire sounded like zippers being opened/closed. That name wouldn't make half as much sense if the MG42 was used for continuous fire.
@@meneerlagerwaard2047 Generally they would fire a whole belt with 2 bursts. Soldiers would try to time attacking during reloads, which generally were about 5-11 seconds.
No.
@@Nghilifa no what?
It was definetly not made for long bursts. As a former MG gunner myself, even short bursts make the barrel hot enough that you need to change it. Firing 100 round bursts are never accurate nor really useful