War Myths You Believe Because of the Movies
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 พ.ค. 2024
- War movies have captivated audiences for decades, but do they tell the whole story? Dive into the world of cinematic inaccuracies as we unveil the myths hidden in the fog of battle.
Biographics: / @biographics
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
Warographics: / @warographics643
MegaProjects: / @megaprojects9649
Into The Shadows: / intotheshadows
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Today I Found Out: / todayifoundout
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
Casual Criminalist: / thecasualcriminalist
Decoding the Unknown: / @decodingtheunknown2373
As a combat veteran there are two that always grate me. The first one is the huge fireballs erupting everywhere whenever anything explodes. In reality you mostly just see dust with a bit of flames if the sun isn't too bright. Secondly, how the enemy helpfully exposes themselves at close range so they're easy to shoot. In reality the enemy will use as much cover as possible and shoot from the longest range they can.
Huge fireballs are a Hollywood staple of action movies which always annoy me.
Wasn't it amazing to realize that the explosion from a few ounces of C4 was actually boring?
*BANG*
OK, it's over. That's it.
This! Frag grenades sending flames 15 feat in the air lol
I agree. I've always wondered why people with guns would at each other firing away.
@@dx1450i mean it might annoy you but for a long time its literally just the limitations of pyrotechnics. Liquid fuel explosions are the safest way to just have a big flame but no actual shrapnel, and the cheapest,
My father taught at the Armor School when it was at Ft Knox and was in the European theater during the war. He always maintained that the biggest mistake movie makers make us showing tanks driving through farmhouses. He said, “you can do it, until you find yourself in the basement or storage cellar”
They do that sometimes. One of my NCOs backed a striker into someone's living room
Dropping a track in the basement got the killdozer.
or throw a track
Exactly. Even if the tank were completely invincible, the floor is not.
And if a tank does have to drive through a building for some reason, they'd rotate the turret to look backwards first because the cannon is not a battering ram and smashing through walls is a good way to damage it.
I was a field artillery crewman (13A10) for over 18 months '71-'73 and never complained about the ringing in my ears when I got out of the Army. As time went on I became nearly deaf in my left ear, the side I turned to the 155mm howitzer when it fired, but by then the VA tells me that my hearing loss is "Not Service Connected". Any young veterans reading this, if you are having hearing issues, get down to the VA before they claim it is your age is your problem.
My husband was a tank crew member. He’s been compensated by VA for hearing loss. In fact he has a new pair of hearing aids coming in soon. He’s had good treatment for this.
What a shame. There should be an automatic assumption that the hearing loss comes from the service. I just read it's one of the hardest disabilities to get approved.
Myself, and every vet I know, is getting 10 percent VA disability for the never-ending "eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee".
Someone once told me the word most artillery people use the most is, “huh”.
@@SeanP7195 second only to “wha-?
Loud gunfire was somewhat accurately portrayed in the movie Blackhawk Down when a US soldier became temporarily deaf when his team mate fired an M249 SAW next his ears.
Same thing in The Kingdom.
But isn't it sad that it's more noteworthy when Hollywood gets it right?
Wait, so it's not like Fury Road when Charlize Theron fires a rifle right next to Tom Hardy' ear?
Kidding! I know it's not. :)
I don’t think that was temporary…
"Which way?" (gestures)
"THAT WAY I THINK"
"Not so farking loud!" - That scene cracks me up every time.
It's likely they only portrayed that scene in the movie because Mark Bowden included it in his book, upon which the film was based.
On another note, the Ranger commander in Blackhawk Down was Captain Michael D. Steele. A decade after Mogadishu, I'd end up serving under the very same Steele, now a full-bird Colonel, in the 101st Airborne. He was an absolutely fantastic commander--the kind I'd willingly have followed to hell and back. That's my biggest peave with the movie (not the book), getting Steele's personality wrong. Steele demanded the highest caliber of performance from his soldiers, but he also deeply cared for them and walked the walk.
You omitted one of the most egregious errors in war movies: the idea that radios will always work on the first try unless it is somehow necessary to the plot that they don't. In actuality, communications takes a lot of work; in fact, there is an entire branch of the US Army dedicated solely to providing communications on the battlefield.
The Signals Corps is surprisingly an invention of the Canadian Army.
Edit: It's not our invention. We were the first in the British Empire.
"During the Boer War, Carruthers noted the importance of tactical signaling in a successful campaign. Observing the employment of heliographs, semaphore flags and lamps, he realized there was a need for a unit to provide proper training in the use of these systems. Upon his return to Canada in 1902, he wrote a paper on signaling for the Royal Military College Club and championed an establishment of a signaling Corps. In 1903, the formation of the Canadian Signal Corps was authorized by General Order 167. It was the first Signal Corps in the British Commonwealth and is the forerunner of the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals."
And a whole other branch dedicated to the repair and maintenance of said communications. And mechanised artillery, tanks, radar and vehicles…..
@thejonathan130 how so? The Canadians haven't really had much military action which would eventually lead to issues on the battfield and in turn require a solution/ innovation. From what I can remember it was first used in the Civil War and they would utilize air balloons in the signal corps. I think the French were the first to use air balloons in combat. Not French Canadians lol
@@thejonathan130 Think you'd better double-check that. IIRC, the Canadian Signal Corps was created sometime after the turn of the (20th) century. The US Army Signal Corps was created on June 21st, 1860. (Yes, I am a retired US Army Signal officer.)
it’s not just the US Army who has an entire corps dedicated to communications, each army has one…
the biggest thing jot seen are the backup communications that are utilized- pigeons, flares, smoke grenades, flags, and even runners…those are ignored unless it’s a plot point
One of my favorite moments from TV was from an episode of The Monkees, where they were in a gunfight with a mob of gangsters. After watching Davy fire about 30 rounds from a revolver, Peter asks "Doesn't that gun ever run out of bullets?" Davy explains "It can't; we're the good guys!" A few seconds later, the gun runs out of bullets. Davy shrugs and observes "I guess we're not so good after all."
Can you link it? I'd like to see it but can't find it
yea i want to see too@@Martcapt
@@Martcaptme 2
There was a 1966 movie called "What's Up Tiger Lilly" (a redub of a low grade Japanese spy flick with a satirical dialog.) in which the hero says: "No bullets? Ah, but if all of you in the audience who believe in fairies will clap your hands, then my gun will be magically filled with bullets!” 😄
I love that movie. The scene where the head baddie is confronted by a rival gang leader about his secret camera had me rewinding it over and over! "When it takes pictures of you, you have all your clothes on, but when the pictures come out, you're naked". You lay one hand on me and I'll peddle those pictures on every schoolyard in town".@@ParaQue-lc2wv
From Night Watch by Terry Pratchett : "When he was a boy he’d read books about great military campaigns, and visited the museums and looked with patriotic pride at the paintings of famous cavalry charges, last stands and glorious victories. It had come as rather a shock, when he later began to participate in some of these, to find that the painters had unaccountably left out the intestines."
And the pink mist.
I know Pratchett is most well known for his Discworld novels (I'm reading the first one now), is Night Watch part of the Discworld series?
@@aspectnato8077 Yes, it is a part of Discworld - it is a part of his series about Sam Vimes. The first of which is "Guards! Guards!" :)
Seeing a person's intestines was the weirdest thing for me. They weren't the color I expected to see and being outside the body was upsetting as well.
@@littleguy6753 I have only seen it when slaughtering animals - seeing it in a person must be so traumatic. I am so sorry for all the people who have to go thru this
One of the theories explaining why the characters in The Walking Dead series still manage to keep getting ambushed by zombies with all the experience they have is that they've lost hearing from all the gunfire and no longer hear the wheezing and growling.
Retired armored corps soldier here... I'll expand on #3 a bit....
1. Tank on tank duels, though continually portrayed in movies as nearly routine are in fact, somewhat rare. A tank's primary role is infantry support, not fighting other tanks. They can certainly do that but the majority of tank rounds are going to be expended on things like buildings, bunkers, emplacements and other hard targets.
2. Tanks are incredibly tough and incredibly powerful weapons but they are also incredibly vulnerable and easy to disable if the enemy is resourceful enough. Penetrating the armor of a modern Abrams, Leopard or Challenger is very difficult but blowing off its track or smashing its drive sprockets is not and though neither of those will kill the tank, they will render it useless and take it out of the battle. Even getting a tank stuck is very simple if you put it in the wrong place.
As many as half of all tanks lost in WW2 were in fact, repairable but since that could not be accomplished, they had to be abandoned and in some cases, scuttled.
look at all of the drone grenade drop videos for proof of that, the vast majority are tanks and armored vehicles disabled and being destroyed to prevent recovery
From what I read about WWII, which is when a lot of tank battles happened, platoons of Sherman tanks had 3 with the standard gun and 1 with the 76mm cannon to deal with heavier German tanks.
The 75mm was better at killing infantry because of the shrapnal, studies showed.
So this certainly bears out the idea that tank on tank wasn't the main concern.
Regarding recovery and repair, that is why we see so many videos of Ukrainian drones dropping grenades into the open hatches of empty Russian tanks. Ideally they would like to grab the tank for themselves, but it is more important that the Russians don't recover and repair it. A nice fire inside the tank guarantees that it is only good for scrap.
@@JonMartinYXD same for destroying the engines…destroying the interior also prevents ammunition from being salvaged which hurts even more since supplies are limited and slow to cone
@@JonMartinYXD
Also... Russians often drive with their hatches open since its poor visibility in the t72 for example.
My brother was a tank driver in the German Bundeswehr in the early 1980's on a Marder recon tank. They were usually paired with one or two Leo2 tanks during training exercises. During one such exercise the order to fire had been given only to the two Leo2 MBT but not to the two Marder tanks. My brother was driving "Luke offen"/"driver's hull open" at the time. As they had not expected the firing order the two Marder tank crews didn't have their hearing protection on when the two Leo2s fired their main guns. One of them was less than 10 meters from my brother. He immediately lost hearing from a torn eardrum in his left ear, and tinnitus in his right. Fortunately for him his eardrum healed after several months and he regained most of his hearing on his left ear.
That was ONE shot of training munitions by an MBT. So, yeah, hearing loss definitely is a great concern.
Wow that must have been bad. I remember being close to a leo firing exercize (I was behind one) and the sound and shock of the shots made a big impression on me.
An old family friend of ours had been a Canadian army tank commander during the Second Word War. During training in England prior to D-Day he was accidentally beside (4 or five meters away) from the Muzzle of a Sherman Firefly (76mm) He was as deaf as a post on that side all his life after that because of his torn eardrum. (He was also thrown ass-over-teakettle).
this same happened to me in the Canadian army... :(
@@kristiangustafson4130 I'm deaf from being an engineer in the Canadian Navy. Just about everyone who served has hearing damage from one thing or other (like an NCO telling you you're doing it all wrong).
i remember letting off about two thousand rounds from my mg 3in an enclosed space nearly continuously as I was the last machine gunner left 'alive' for my platoon in the training exercise. One of my earplugs fell off midway through but i decided to ignore it in favor of continuously firing and swapping barrels. My right ear is still noticeably harder of hearing even 5 years later.
Glad he mentioned the role of artillery. Its always hillarious hearing people complaining about "reaslism" in war video games because an actually realistic war game would be you just getting shelled to death in a trench.
Movie inaccuracies:
1) shooting guns effectively with all your Buddies and then whispering like the team is still sneaking into the objective; everyone would be screaming to each other, only the guy who didn’t shoot would say, “…why are you guys yelling so loudly at each other?”
2) dropping empty magazines on the ground, battlefield or jungle floor; while you may eventually get more ammunition in bulk boxes or case someday, once you lose or drop a magazine that’s it, it’s gone, ammo gets replaced, not magazines,
3) a Glock making the sound that a hammer has been cocked back to single action like you can with a Sig P 226, 1911 or M9 (oh, you’re serious now? Sorry, isn’t going to happen with a Glock/Luger or any hammerless pistol).
4) the WORST is the blood splattered on glass after a head shot. If the bullet went through the head, and the head explodes and there is a blood splatter, there is also a bullet still traveling or tumbling forward out the head and further down range (!!!). The bullet would hit the glass, break the glass, drop the glass, then the blood splatter would follow if there was still glass standing after the window broke. This is done correctly in the first God Father, shooting at the Italian restaurant: the bullet is portrayed as going through the neck and then 20 feet back you hear and see a restaurant glass window shattering and the drapes collapse - - Scarface, Ronin, all kinds of films get this wrong. I wish Hollywood would stop doing this.
Honorable Mention? Silencers applied to revolvers. (Don’t get me started.)
No hatred, just saying.
Thanks for the video.
About point 2, magazines are ultimately a disposable item. Not saying you wont retain them in training or when you can, but mags, and especially AR15/M16 mags are considered disposable
There was one revolver that could be suppressed. Can't remember it's name but it was Russian. But I get such a much from people thinking suppressors "silence" a gun. Nothing silences an object traveling faster than the speed of sound.
A pet irritation of mine is lack of fog of war. Protagonists know far too much about what is happening. Thin Red Line makes a good job of this, the NCO sends a small squad to do a task, sometime later hears some noise from that direction and looks completely bewildered. He’s no idea what’s going on. Guys on the ground usually know crap about what’s going on even short distances away. Movies make knowing things look a lot easier than they really are.
I haven't served, but I have been opfor in military exercises. Quite often I had no clue where the enemy was, even if the trainers told us from which direction our enemy would be coming. Reality is always different from what's planned on paper. Defending a house is quite scary too, as you see them get closer from the windows, but you might have to take cover if they provide decent suppressing fire. When you lose sight of the enemy you will have to listen. Sound travels differently inside, so it gets very chaotic very fast. Add nerves and excitement to that.
Also actions take so much longer in real life than it's often depicted. I was sometimes surprised how long it took from the first contact to the end of an engagement. I quite like the Band of Brothers series, but because of the series I thought the action at Brecourt manor to take out German artillery was very fast. Maybe 15 minutes or something. In reality it took several hours.
In those exercises there was often a lull at some point, as both sides might need to regroup, get ammo, or at the very least have an idea where their own troops and the enemy are. It's not always clear which parts of the battlefield are safe and which aren't. At one point in an urban setting I was upstairs in a house defending a position, and the enemy has already secured multiple houses. The surrounding area seemed safe, except for the second floor where my buddy and I were hiding. The enemy began transporting their "wounded", but organised their logistics right in my line of sight. They thought it was safe as no shots have been fired for a bit, nobody told them it wasn't safe, and I then took out their stretcher bearers. This was all just training scenarios, using blanks and a "lasertag/MILES"-like system. I can, nonetheless, imagine shit like that could also happen in real life. That's also why training is so important. Make the mistakes in training so you won't make those mistakes in real life.
I think that also has to do with books about battles which always show maps with arrows pointing here and there making it all very clear.
Yeah I definitely get that. It'd just be treated like a mistake by the cinematographers and editors if a scene came off as confusing as in real life unless they REALLY went out of their way to show it off.
@@DanAndHoeI remember being op for and being asked to hide on a hill while some other staged a protest as civilians. Wait for them to bunch up a bit and get more people to handle the crowd and then to start shooting. Easily could kill a handful of people before they even knew what way the bullets are coming from. Scary stuff to think can actually happen
Fog of war, It's pretty much what's happening in Ukraine right now
One of my biggest peeves is when the “hero” runs his rifle out of ammo, but instead of reloading, tosses the rifle aside and pulls their sidearm… I hate it when this happens in movies/TV shows because not only does it make the hero look stupid, it makes me feel like the director/writer/producer thinks the audience is stupid as well. Even if they encountered a malfunction, the proper course of action would be to clear the malfunction and get back in the fight with your primary weapon. There very well may be times where a sidearm is necessary, but rarely is that the case when your primary weapon just needs a fresh magazine. No soldier I know would EVER throw their rifle in the dirt! That’s tantamount to throwing your child in a trash can…
Especially when they forgot to replace the sound of plastic M16 tossed to the ground. Instead of 4kg. thud, it was a clack like in Rambo 2.
‘Remember, Switching to your sidearm is always faster than reloading.’
Then wear a fucking sling!
One of My Drill Sergeants literally flung one of our guys weapons as hard as he could to demonstrate that they can in fact take a considerable amount of abuse.
He also later accidentally backed up the deuce and a half over the KP detail's stacked arms... They couldn't take that much abuse.
Saying bad things about Hollywood producers is antisemitic.
This comes from a game mechanic in _Counter-Strike_ that all the other shooters copied, except maybe _Insurgency,_ as that was made by Iraq War vets.
The only story my grandpa spoke about from his time in WWII was one where he brought some supplies to the front line and had to stay there for 24 hours of non-stop shelling that lit up the entire horizon in every direction at night. He was evidently terrified because he often seemed ashamed talking about that moment.
Anyone in such a situation who isn't terrified is senseless.
I left a hard building during a very light (harassing fire) rocket attack because our battalion headquarters company barracks got hit, and I had a combat lifesaver (CLS) bag with me and was about 45 feet away from the barracks that got hit.
Fortunately, there were no injuries, let alone anyone needing quick clot, a Hexstend IV, artificial airway (either J-Tube or nasopharyngeal), chest seal, thoracic decompression, tourniquets or eye cup.
@@akulkis Either that or it's ennui or just complete indoctrination. Folks that aren't terrified in that sort of a situation are dangerously close to being suicide bombers. They've likely completely given up on coming back alive or have made their peace with death.
Don’t know why he’d be ashamed. Artillery is fucking terrifying. I remember reading Eric Remarque’s descriptions in AQOTWF. Dudes would literally piss and shit themselves. And their comrades would just shrug and let them change their skivvies without comment or judgement.
After 30 years in the military, I'll say it's sound and hearing they don't get right. All the other stuff you mentioned is true too, but every situation is LOUD. Almost everyone I know that has worn a green uniform and didn't work in the rear, now wears a hearing aid or they just say "what?" alot. Everything having to do with hearing is shot when the sh#t hits the fan. No one can hear anything. Not anyone yelling, not the radio, hell you can't even tell if any vehicles are running or not sometimes. It's all visual and by feel. Raps on the shoulder by your buddy and hand signals, also dirt flying is a clue. You're either so busy you don't hear anything or you're hunkered down and all you want is for the f@ching noise to stop!
A lot is not alot
@@HWG-wm8ldit is, if you can read it and understand its context.
If you wanna correct grammar and spelling. Go to teachers college and get off social media.😊
My grandfather described how, in the Argonne Woods in WW I, he wandered too close to an artillery position of some big guns. When the gun fired, the sound wave hit him hard enough that he fell down. His massive hearing problems probably dated to that, plus all the other gunfire of course.
For real even small arms ain’t no joke. Went shooting with my dad and brother probably about 12 years ago. Didn’t have my earplugs in good and my brother let off 2 rounds of .45LC. Ears still ringing
@@bn-tc2tkTry taking taurine. 👍🏻
@@MeanBeanComedy : Check WebMD first, for uses and possible side effects.
One of the many unfortunate side effects of combat is the permanent hearing loss. Bothers me when I’m watching action movies, I’ll be yelling at my TV about how that one person who fired a shotgun next to their buddy just ruptured their ear drum.
I've been forward deployed as an 0311. No movie has been able to adequately convey the earth-shattering cacophony of a firefight at close range.
I was a career artilleryman. The first item he mentioned is true. Artillery is called the "King of Battle" for a reason. His second point is also on point. When deployed to Iraq, we instantly lost effective hearing when the first rifle round was fired. Even with earplugs it could stun your sense of hearing.
No wonder suppressors are being distributed these days en masse
I accidentally forgot to put my ear-pro on when out gopher hunting and took a shot with a 22-250; I would lift it to talk to my partner, and put it back to take a shot - I forgot that one time for a single shot. I was literally stunned. Yup, a shorter barrelled 5.56 would be equally bad, and worse in burst or auto. I can’t even imagine artillery. I’ve always known firearms to be incredibly loud, and that was the one and only time I forgot(I’ve now got electronic ear-pro), but dear lord was I ever surprised at how hard it hit me. No wonder flash-bangs work.
"Queen of Battle"
@@dancarter6044 That is the infantry
My Dad and Grandad both served in the UK Royal Artillery.
They described themselves as 'Long Range Snipers.....' 🙂
My grandfather was hit by artillery at the mentioned battle of Seelower Höhen (Seelow Heights) and heavily wounded. He had to hold in his intestines with his bare hands until some of his comrades brought him to a field hospital. He would see most of them for the last time that day. Some died when they were sent to prison camps deep into Russia/Siberia after the war, some died at the Seelower Höhen, others were still "missing in action" in 1996. There was one particular comrade who my grandfather said saved his life, his whereabouts remained unknown and somewhat mysterious. He was thought to have died not in Berlin but for more north east, which was strange, since there was most likely no way for him to get out of Berlin/Seelower Höhen. Other soldiers stated they had seen him in Siberia, but he was never to be seen again.
In which unit was your Opa ?
sure...
I make explosives as a hobby, explosions in films are always too firey; most explosions are a quick flash
Survived 300+ explosions while working on a shredding mill at a junkyard. Usually it's just a deafening bang accompanied by smoke, dust and shrapnel. Even when gas tanks from cars blew up the fire wasn't like it is in movies.
Thing that gets me in older war movies (medieval and such) is how the warriors charge the target from half a mile away while screaming, swords in the air. You'd be too exhausted to fight by the time you reach the castle/barricade/dragon.
Honestly the charging in general bugs me. Use formations, even simple ones. It's always like all of them have no self preservation instinct at all (looking at you 300)
@@hanneswiggenhorn2023cavalry charges were a realistic warfare tactic. However, it was more used to take down routed or distracted enemy troops. It would be a suicide to knights/chevaliers to charge against a tight and well-organized formation of soldiers with their spears-and-shields wall
@@josteinhenrique2779 of course, cavalry charges are a different thing. What I meant is having 2 armies on foot and at the last 30 meters they abandon any formation and just mindlessly charge at the enemy like for example in 300. Cavlary charges are something quite different and can be very effective against losely organised groups or at flanking tight formations
Seen Monty Python? 😂
Cavalry would, in fact, canter up to about 100 metres of the target and then charge.
In gunpowder-era movies, I am amazed at the clarity of sight in the battles. Having seen the amount of smoke in re-enactments, one comes to appreciate the almost literal *fog-of-war* that the combatants were faced with. Movie makers can save some money by simply filming smoke screens in realistic black powder battles.
Shoot just firing a few shots from a musket (5 to be exact) for a demonstration in a Living History Park, I had a small haze of smoke around me. And that's with a light breeze. I can't imagine a battle in a completely still day.
Well, that's simply an issue of the audience being able to follow the events. All the more when you have highly paid actors that you want to show...
@@als3022 Light breeze and time. Not fast to reload.
I always like in those films when the leads running around popping off multiple shots from the same gun. Or someone fires a warning shot in a conversation scene, then continues to point that gun at the other person like it's a threat.
When did we stop using gunpowder? I assume you mean the black gunpowder era.
One of the movie blunders that always angers me is the use of suppressors (aka "silencers"). A suppressor doesn't make the gun silent. It only reduces the sound of the report to a level that is less damaging to your hearing. Shooting a suppressed firearm with supersonic ammo is still very loud thanks to the "snap" of the bullet breaking the sound barrier. No suppressor can change that. Even shooting subsonic ammo, you should still use ear protection.
It should also be noted that the quietest firearms, the Welrod and the De Lisle Carbine, were purpose built to be as quiet as possible. Both are bolt action, so as few moving parts as possible and no shell casing bouncing around until you eject it, and the suppressors are a fixed part of the gun, not something attached after the fact. They both sacrifice basically everything else in order to be as close to silent as they can. Also, suppressors don't last forever, the more you use them, the less effective they become.
When I watched war movies as a kid, I always wondered why, when the goodies (usually Americans) after running out of ammunition, didn't just pick up and use the weapons of the dozens of baddies (usually Germans) they'd just slain. It was decades later as an adult, I discovered that combatants in wartime use and used each other's weapons, and other equipment, all the time. You can find photographs of the practice right here on TH-cam.
Finnish soldiers did that a lot in winterwar. They were otherwise short of ammo.
It did happen, but it wasn't really that common. It was generally an act of desperation if front line soldiers did that. It sounds simple, but when people are trying to kill you, it isn't. Finding a gun, getting it, finding someone with ammunition, searching pockets and pouches to collect it from them all while under fire?
But most likely if you see random photos or video of some American with an MP40 or something, it was one they picked up well after the fighting ended.
That doesn't mean it never happened, it surely did, but it was not routine.
Now collecting weapons and ammunition lying around after a battle is a different thing and was definitely done with those sometimes pressed into service, especially with second line troops.
In some circumstances, that could be dangerous. You might find yourself receiving friendly fire when your buddies can't see you but only hear the enemy weapon.
For me, its when (especially ww2 movies) soldiers start running out of ammo. And are freaking out because they are low or out. Yet there are 10-20 dead or heavily wounded soldiers with 50 feet of said people, who were carrying the same weapon, (and back then ammo were on bandoliers so its super easy to get to, no digging) why not grab their ammo?! OR someone gets wounded (any war movie) and they haul away the person, and leave all ammo, weapons, grenades, etc with the soldier, then 5 min later theyre in another firefight and oh no, low on ammo. Well if you would have taken the ammo from the dead body, or the wounded soldier, this wouldnt be an issue. I never understood why its never depicted.
@@kennethcole1886 That is all very much easier said than done while in combat.
A US rifleman's standard equipment was ten clips in pouches on their belt. So if a guy got killed before reloading his weapon, you could go through all his pouches and get one clip per man in the squad. And you take one of your soldiers out of the fight for the time to maneuver the body to access the pouches, get the clips, and distribute them.
It absolutely would have been done, especially in lulls in combat. But, it would absolutely not be a trivial task when the enemy is pressing hard on their position. Most militaries would be much like this.
For a British rifleman, it is a bit different as ammunition was carried in fifty round bandolier's (one slung over the shoulder for personal use and one in a pouch for reloading Bren gun magazines) that were specifically designed to enable easy transfer of ammunition to the Bren gunners. But, even then, if the guy ends up dead on his face or something, getting at it under fire would not be that easy of a task.
The greatest war myth in the movies for me is
“Samurai is an honorable warrior who fights fairly and hate guns.”
Meanwhile, the great samurais of Sengoku period are full blown Machiavellian and dominated the war with firearms. They stabbed each other’s backs all the time. Nobunaga rose to power by killing his own siblings. Hideyoshi, Nobunaga’s protege, killed Nobunaga’s sister and Nobunaga’s most loyal retainer to consolidate his own power. The winner Ieyasu even murdered his own wife and son just to stay in a proximity of Nobunaga’s power and wiped out the entire Toyotomi family (and the civilians of Osaka) to maintain his winner status.
And before firearms, they were primarily _archers._
The Katana is a _backup weapon._
The Nodachi, a heavy two-handed anti-peasant weapon, was only used by the _front ranks._
If they didn't hide behind their _own_ chaff.
Take away the titles and it's just mad Men lusting after a century of power.
And didn't they also test out new swords on any random peasant on the road?
Samurai were supposed to be the way we see them in films, but in reality they were so hated that ordinary people became secret assasins in order to kill them, the ninja.
between that and the Nanjing massacre the japanese arent exactly the nicest people. yeah the US and british are legendary for their colonizing, but im legitimately impressed how bad the japanese can be.
@@JoshSweetvale Well, it should be noted that depending on the era, the Samurai were the only warriors. However, as the wars grew in scope the various lords started recruiting more and more peasant warriors, eventually forming the Ashigaru who were basically half-samurai in status, and in some cases even became full samurai. That's also something worth noting; There were way more samurai than what one may think, as it was a caste you were born into, sure, they were a tiny minority relative to the general population, but they still numbered in the tens, if not hundreds of thousands. Like, the lowest ranking courtier would be a full samurai.
Also, the Nodachi was not anti-peasant, it was a general purpose shock trooper weapon, but was also heavily used as anti-cav (slashing the horses legs)
The one that bugs me in any kind of cinematic battle is when there is no clear military objective, the opposing forces just meet up to fight like its the UFC or something.
*This.*
Interesting that of all movies and shows the clone wars would treat artillery with a degree of realism, showing how they often targeted key positions and important enemy vehicles. There were often reasons given as to why the small team of plucky heroes have to go in and do most of the work, like a force field or some other high tech device that counters their artillery.
A few myths about WWII people believe:
1. "There was 5 landing zones on D-Day". There were dozens. The 5 everyone knows were simply the biggest ones.
2. "Rommel was a great General or leader". He led his tank division to success, but that was about it. He was at his peak as a Division Commander at most.
3. "That the Japanese didn't target, nor hit, any fuel storage or repair yards in Pearl Harbor". Yes, they did, but they failed to do significant damage.
4. "Britain didn't sacrifice much, the Empire did". Britain suffered 10x the amount of casualties that the worst-suffering Commonwealth nation, Canada, did.
5. "The Allies needed to capture and crack Enigma machines". No. They easily captured many of them by the end of 1941, and had worked out how they worked. What they actually needed were the codebooks, so that they could actually understand what the Enigma messages were saying. Allan Turing didn't crack the Enigma machines, he cracked codes the machine used.
6. "Germany were mechanised and easily outdid their enemies using blitzkrieg". The Germans were actually lacking vehicles, and often relied on horses for messages and carrying supplies, even in the early days of the Invasion of Poland.
7. "Blitzkrieg was a German tactic which allowed them to dominate enemies". Blitzkrieg wasn't even a thing until the war started, and Western journalists gave Germany's speed and power that name to try and justify being beaten so badly. Germany didn't have a "Blitzkrieg" tactic that allowed them to win. Their tactics were normal encirclement tactics; they just happened to do these fast, and refugees happened to flood towards the Polish/Allies, slowing them down. There was no co-ordinated 'Blitzkrieg' tactic.
8. "The STG-44 was the first assault rifle". No, it was the first mass-produced assault rifle. There were several that came before it, but they either weren't good so not successful, or just weren't produced in large enough numbers to equip an army. The reason everyone remembers the STG is simply because of it's iconic status.
9. "Omaha beach was a slaughter, many Americans died". No, not really. It wasn't that much worse than other beaches, and comparatively very few Americans were killed on Omaha. The American D-Day Deaths numbered roughly ~2400, about half of all Allied Deaths. Considering 73,000 American Troops landed on D-Day, that means only 3.287% of Americans who landed were killed. 1 in 30 were killed. Considering an LCVP Troop Transport landing ship can carry ~30 soldiers, that's about 1 soldier per boat. That's bad, but not `boatloads of GIs being massacred by MG42s` bad. That imagery comes purely from games and movies, such as Saving Private Ryan. Not even Omaha beach had hugely disproportionate defences that somehow massacred thousands. Of course, no one knows exact figures, it might be that 2000 Americans died on Omaha and only 400 on Utah, or it could've been an even split - we don't know. Considering 100 were killed at Point du Hoc alone, and easily 700 at Utah, I'm learning more towards a spread out ratio. But either way, the point stands, there was not thousands of US soldiers being gunned down by heavily fortified bunkers filled with machineguns.
Something that surprised me fairly recently when I read through Band of Brothers: there was a lot of downtime being a soldier in WWII (and I assume other wars). Don't get me wrong, they obviously went through hell, but from movies, books, school, and other media, I always had the impression that they were sent to the front lines and lived in a trench under constant fire for years. I was surprised reading that it was often short bursts of front line activity followed by weeks or months in relative safety at a training camp, waiting in reserve. They even discussed at times how bored they were just waiting for something to do; how they'd rather just go fight and get it overwith so they could go home. Again, this is not to diminish what they went through, it was just a side of soldier life that I had never heard of before. I learned there's a lot more to a war than just what's happening on the front lines.
War is 98 % of boredom and 2% of pure, gut wrenching horror.
As they say, hurry hurry wait.
@@jokurandomi93 In Nothing New On The Western Front the long periods of boredom are depicted quite impressively, I think. Ah, yes, the horror too.
Yes, in WW1 as well, soldiers had enough time to make art. Trench art is pretty cool, look it up!
Band of Brothers is a very unique case, they were paratroopers. Shock troops. They aren’t frontline infantry, they went in, fought for a few weeks, pulled out and prepped for the next jump. Read The Liberator, about Felix Sparks in the 45th Infantry Division. Infantry divisions, at least in WWI and II, were, more often than not, on the front line for a massively long time
Hand grenades. Usually depicted as small, man-portable thermonuclear devices. In movies, they produce a big blast, a fireball, and tosses the enemy into the air. Also, the delay before it explodes is dependent on the requirements of the scene (I'm looking at you, "Where Eagles Dare").
I rewatched WED not that long ago, and was appalled at how bad some of the fight scenes were. Entire squads of men running along and getting mown down by Clint E. with a schmisser & 1 magazine of ammo
Or they go the other way and make them useless. I've seen a few grenades go off in TV and movies that left me thinking, "Oh come on! That guy should be riddled with shrapnel, not completely unscathed."
people truly think that grenades are huge dynamite sticks
Yeah, an orange huge fireball, which the main characters always manage to outrun...
@@ramiere1412 which is hilarious because 1 stick of dynamite doesnt do a ton either
Great video! Excellent point about artillery.
My dad was in the 99th Infantry Division in Europe during WWII. The 99th was in the extreme northern shoulder of The Battle of the Bulge. After the first 48 hours of the German attack, the 99th and other divisions in that area were told to withdraw west to the Elsenborn Ridge. As a kid, I was surprised when he told that the Americans had perform a “strategic withdrawal “. He said while it could be considered a retreat, the Allies needed to consolidate their lines because they were stretched so thinly in the Ardennes.
Allied artillery was brought to Elsenborn Ridge because it was the high ground and gave excellent fields of fire against the German advance.
After about the 18th of December, the American artillery on Elsenborn Ridge decimated the attacking German troops. Many of the US 155 mm “Long Toms” were brought to the Ridge to stop the German advance.
During the Bulge, the Germans made use of “tree bursts” against American positions. By setting fuses to explode 40-50 above the ground, the German shells would rain down not only metal fragments but also pieces of trees.
Dad always said there were more Americans wounded or killed in the Bulge from artillery that small arms fire.
The Belgium army still uses Elsenborn Ridge as a live fire artillery range.
Everybody talks about Bastogne and the 101st Airborne, but Eisenborn Ridge was just as critical to the overall battle. Your dad and his buddies were heroes.
That would explain why it's blurred in maps
I’ve always been amazed that absolute terror didn’t consume soldiers entirely in combat. My uncle was infantry in Vietnam and I’ve always seen him as superhuman to have gone through what I can only imagine as the worst possible scenario and came out on the other side. I have the utmost respect for everyone who’s seen combat.
My dad who was a WWII combat vet ,ETO, 3rd army, said that he could always tell the guys who had been in combat and those who never were, the back of the lines guys and so forth. He said the guys who talk all big about combat, who glorify it, are rah rah had more than likely never been there. Most combat vets don't talk about it, let alone glorify it IME.
Oh believe me, it is absolutely terrifying! It really comes down to how you deal with it. I’ll leave it there.
@@canecasavettes85
One factor that those advocating that the answer to personal safety in the US is people going around armed leave out is what happens in combat conditions. The military spends a lot of time and money training troops to handle combat, to have them de sensitize to the conditions. Yet 20% of soldiers facing combat conditions freeze, usually but not always ppl who have experienced little to nothing of it. Then there is friendly fire, which often is caused by panic, same thing with civilian casualties.
The one thing my dad always said was that there is no way to even closely show how horrible it is, no movie or book can do that.
@@njlauren Agreed. You have to know how to use a firearm. You don’t shoot Willy Nillly like you see in the movies. It’s a one shot, one kill mentality! Fight or flight. But if anyone thinks it isn’t terrifying, they are sadly mistaken! I wish that I could take away the things I saw and went through. The worst not being in an attack, but the aftermath!🥲🥲🥲 And I have to stop again! Sorry
I think the poor count of ammo is probably one of the more egregious ones for movies, mostly because keeping track of ammo and such would be such a great way directors could keep up tension in a firefire and show the difference between an experienced and collected combatant vs. a novice.
Who knew that Die Hard 2: die harder with the jungle clips would be one of the most realisitic portrayals. Even the original, you see him reloading.
You feeling lucky, punk?
The TV show Lost had only a few different guns change hands alot from episode to episode. Director did pretty good at keeping track of who had what gun from episode to episode. Screwed up once over several seasons i think. Apparently, that happens A LOT with other directors.
The only movie I can recall of the top of my head referring to a shortage of ammo is, of all things, Disney's Swiss Family Robinson!
I have to think of Hot Shots Part Deux where Topper fires his machine gun continuously and stands in a pile of spent shells that grows bigger and bigger.
I seen something a few days ago saying that one of the most accurate depictions of combat in a film was in Forest Gump. The Scene where they get jumped, it's chaotic and you don't actually see the enemy. You just see bodies dropping, the sound of bullets, screaming and explosions.
I've heard that too but I can't sit through them glorifying McNamara's retards long enough to watch the damned movie. That's some sick shit.
Gumpwas one of the earliest accurate portrayal of tracers too
@@Alexandre-sz2jbSorry I'm not a terrorist.
@Alexandre-sz2jb uh yeah, religion is pretty stupid
@@Alexandre-sz2jb
shart face
Heh, the entire Wick series is just Wick killing people because he keeps miss hearing things being said.
Speaking of the loudness of artillery, there was a battle during the American Civil War (I believe it was at the Devil's Den, during the Battle of Gettysburg), in which some soldiers were found dead in and amongst a large group of boulders. The odd thing was, that none of the soldiers had any bullet or shrapnel wounds anywhere on their bodies. Aside from some blood coming out of their ears, it looked as if these soldiers should be able to just get up and walk off the battlefield. What was finally determined to be the cause of their deaths, was the percussion of the artillery blasts echoing around and among the boulders. Some blasts were even amplified by the happenstance placement of these rocks. The percussion was made so great that their bodies could not withstand the acoustic forces placed upon them, and the internal organ damage was catastrophic!
If that’s true, that’s wild. Is that the famous picture of the dead soldiers between the boulders? I remember reading somewhere that those photos were fake, and that the photographer had some soldiers drag some of the dead bodies over to the rocks, and positioned them there, staging the photo’s. I don’t doubt it, photography was super weird like that back in the day. They kind of had a thing for posing dead people and taking pictures of them.
The never running out of ammo is probably one of the biggest myths from movies. Not just war movies but all movies. To go along with that is a perfect cycle of operations for every round fired. Never a bad primer, double feed, or jam at all.
gun jams seem to be quite frequent.. bit like car engines not starting for first 20 trys.
Problems only as the plot requires.
Jammed guns do happen in movie scenes but it's more likely in a cops vs robbers scene.
The million round magazine…..
Same with video games too with fighter planes with unlimited ammo.
I’m glad you mentioned hearing loss. That’s such a huge thing historically. So many soldiers were near deaf or deaf.
Mel Brooks said he never worried about dying as much as going deaf. Must have been loud AF in those sewers and pillboxes.
Hardest part is getting the VA to recognize the hearing loss as service connected
My Dad lost a lot of his hearing after WW2.
Add me to the list. 50% in my right ear.
yeah my grandad is only deaf in one ear because he was far to one side of the firing line most of the time (forgot which ear)
One thing that has always annoyed me about movies/TV/video games that feature gunfighting or combat is that people are rarely wounded. They're either hit and killed right then and there, or not hit at all. In reality, wounded typically outnumber killed in combat at least 3 to 1. Getting hit just about anywhere is gonna knock you out of the fighting, even if it doesn't kill you, which is most often the case. People aren't going to take some superficial wound from a modern rifle and keep on fighting like they hardly noticed.
Also, anyone who's ever been in combat will tell you, humans are similar to deer when you're shooting at them. Sometimes you fire, hit them, and they fall. Sometimes you fire, *think* you hit them, but you don't know for sure if you did because they didn't fall. Sometimes you think *maybe* you hit them, but you found them dead laying under some vehicle or in some back alley, but you don't know if it was you who killed them or someone else. You're usually not even 100% sure it was the same guy you were just shooting at unless they're wearing something really distinctive and you actually noticed in the first place. Sometimes multiple people are shooting at the same guy and you're not sure who hit him, if anyone hit him at all.
My father was a medic under Patton. He told of men with grievous, even fatal wounds who carried on with the battle as if un-injured, in order to help his comrades. He had to force them to stop, to get treated, but sometimes they just kept going until they dropped dead.
There is a story that for the battle of D-Day, Eisenhower wanted only young men to fight. The young don’t think that they are going to die.
Medic under Patton?? Did he see "the slap"??
And I find it hard to ask that question without thinking of Will Smith for some reason.😵💫😵💫😵💫
There's also the myth (not really perpetrated by war movies so much) that suppressors almost completely silence a round. That vast majority of the time, they make a round being fired hearing safe but still quite loud, especially if it's a supersonic round.
What round wouldn't be supersonic? Even muskets are like 400-500 m/s muzzle velocity.
@@user-lv7ph7hs7l there are plenty of subsonic loads out there. 145gr 9mm,I think every common loading of 45acp, lower velocity 22s and 300blackout which was designed specifically as a subsonic round to be used with a suppressor. A lot of other large bore revolver rounds are also subsonic. I'm sure there are plenty more.
@@rushthezeppelin Hmm I didn't know. Most pistols are supersonic , 500 m/s is pretty common and of course many rifles are way past that. I think subsonic is definetly the exception. Some revolvers have Mach 2+ projectiles. I guess it makes sense for "quiet weapons" the sonic boom is gonna a be a big part of the noise. Still seems weird. I know a bunch of 22s are supersonic and even like an old 24 pounder gun manages about mach 2 nd they didn't exactly have a tight fit or where particularily efficient weapons. Although they used a lot of gunpowder, like 5 kg I think for 24 pounder gun.
@@user-lv7ph7hs7l It's not just about being quieter (which subsonic is still quite loud because of the powder charge). In some cases subsonic is also more accurate. As soon as a round drops from supersonic to subsonic it tends to throw off it's accuracy but if you keep it subsonic it stays pretty accurate (I've seen the exact thing personally trying to shoot 308 at 1000yds, it drops to subsonic at about 850 and your accuracy goes to hell). At least that's the idea behind 22 match ammo. Also frankly sometimes like 45 acp you have certain weight bullets that make the most sense for it and the cartridge just doesn't have enough capacity to put enough charge in there to make is supersonic. There's a buttload of different variables involved in all of this and a lot of it also comes down to whoever developed the cartridge.
@@user-lv7ph7hs7l I have subsonic rounds for my 22LR weapons
Another inaccuracy regarding the continuously firing of automatic weapons in movies is that if you are not careful you will over heat the barrel and your gun will jam.
Many of those mentioned don't bug me so much as I can understand why they do them from a movie pov. The unlimited ammo is annoying and stupid but the ones that I see in movies that bug me the most, is how bullet proof many things are, like drywall or car doors stopping round. The other really, really annoying pet peeve I have is the constant racking sounds when ever people draw weapons, very often with none of them being racked at the time. It is followed and partnered by double racking when they do actually rack a weapon. Guys arrive on scene draw weapons, rack their semi-auto pistol, approach a building and then rack the same weapon again, with no round ejected. Same is true for pump shotguns.
OH YES, that also annoys me SO Much. Like when a guy walks up to his enemy and only then loads a round into the chamber.
One thing I was told by a veteran is although the movies might depict the smell of rotting or burning flesh on the battlefield they never depict the smell of fresh guts and blood.
THIS! I worked in a butchery for a couple years and blood and carcasses have a distinct smell. I can imagine a battlefield with any large amount of wounded soldiers may have a similar stench.
Or all the SHIT. The cacophony of war is hardly conducive to "holding it".
In the 1940's, my father volunteered for an all expenses paid tour of Sicily, Italy and Holland, courtesy of the Canadian Government. He had a lot of combat stories. When it came to near death experiences and fear, it was almost always about artillery. He always carried an entrenching tool and digging in was the first thing he and everyone else did after an advance.
Just reading autobiographies of combatants from all sides, I got a similar impression. The dreaded hand of death and mutilation from bombardments was ever present, and it seemed to have a fatalistic randomness about it.
Was Canadian army really not a big fan of keeping POW? Saw a comment on another video calling their grandpa was happy he had been in British hands not canadian
A close friend of mine was in US Special Forces during Viet Nam. So he was forward deployed with locals.
Anyways, he said he spent his spare time digging his foxhole deeper and loading more magazines. Nobody wants to deal with artillery and nobody wants to run out of ammunition.
@@andrewcheng1998 Don't believe that comment. There is heaps of German evidence that Canadians treated POW's very well. In fact, many Germans stayed after the War as they had married Canadian women or went to America to live.
@@BatMan-oe2gh Indeed there was a wave of post-WW2 immigration from Germany as POWs went home with glowing reviews of Canada. It also helped that the POW camps barely even needed fences. You're in a camp on the Prairies: where are you going to go?
Imagine movie directors just showing a 2 hour repair scene for a tank.
During basic training, during night training on the range for full automatic with the M-16 (that should date me 🤣) we had many soldiers/recruits that were on ammo duty bringing WAYYY more ammo than most of us were issued. I was feeling horrible due to freezing weather and our having inadequate clothing due to having to take off our MOP gear because it was lightly drizzling (we would have overheated with longjohns under MOP gear). I knew roughly where my target was but didn't manage to get a single round in it - NOR did any of the other troops next to me with a shitload of ammo. People think being downrange from a ton of auto fire is a death sentence... it's not. When I showed a drill SGT the target and was asked why there were no holes in it, I said "He didn't smile" That earned me a grin and a short guffaw.
One of my favorites is seeing the enemy. I've been in probably close to a LOT of firefights yet I can count on my hands how many times I've actually seen who I'm shooting at. You almost never actually see who the Hell you're shooting at unless you're performing an ambush, sniping, or it's CQB situation. People are always surprised when they ask me how many people I've killed and all I can really say is, "Honestly I don't know."
I hate that question and there’s no way to answer it well.
2 tours in Nam as a Seabee, 65/66; 66/67. Never saw who I shot at or who was shooting at me. Could see rounds that missed… Lots of noise & confusion. Myopia, not able to see big picture. That’s what the landing in SPR gotright
Seriously, what the fuck is with this. The range on even WWII rifles is hundreds of yards. I get that we have to see everyone's "acting," but cmon, you can switch back and forth or something. The "whites of their eyes" thing was literal centuries ago.
Also, what kind of special asshole is asking a combat veteran literally anything about firefights, but especially that goddamn question.
@@Mortablunt I like your Lugansk flag pfp - Работайте, братья!
@@thundermarkperun1083 Держитесь, братья! Мы придём!
Something I noticed he left out. Ambushes. The movies like to show that as soon as the firing starts, the people being ambushed immediately jump off each side of the trail, after sustaining 1 or 2 casualties, and begin firing. Then the whole thing just turns into a big firefight. No, not often. There is a military axiom that states, "If your ambush turns into a gunfight, you planned it poorly". The truth is when the ambush is sprung, it suddenly sounds like hell come to earth for about 6 or 8 seconds and then goes silent. That's it. The ambushees are generally all dead, with sometimes maybe one or two escaping. This was my experience with the 5th Marines, 2/1 in the An Hoa River Basin in Quang Nam Province. Vietnam 69-70.
one book I read set in Vietnam specifically stated that they would put landmines on the side of the path where they were planning an ambush so if people did dive to the side they'd just land on a mine.
Well, not that I ever saw. Standard land mines aren't normally carried on S&D,s. Claymores are. A good set up is to form your line with automatic weapons in the center to sweep the area and riflemen spread on both flanks. If you had claymores you would set them on your side facing the trail. You fire them first then everybody else shoots any targets left. Very quick, very efficient. Setting landmines by the trail for people to jump on (for a variety of reasons) would not have been at all practical. And one more thing. Be very careful of any books you read about Vietnam. About 80% of them are largely BS, half-truths, and outright lies. @@matrixinterface
@@Rikki0 This is what I've gathered. Books and documentaries may very well be ok for dates, and events, timelines in a certain war. However, if you want what it was like, only the guys like you that had to put up with that nightmarish hell can actually ever get it and explain it. The few Vietnam vets I've met in my life are almost always larger than life, overtly positive people. I learned from one of them to not ask too much, as he went from his loud and boisterous self to a very stricken, quiet version I'd never seen. He mentioned that he was a M60 gunner when I asked what his MOS was, and his next reply was that he just didn't really wanna talk about it. I backed right off and we got back to him busting his buddy's balls LOL I also learned from these guys that I'm grateful that I never could follow my dream of joining the Army (asthma) and that I don't have to deal with that hell.
Thank you for dealing with the bullshit you were asked/ordered to deal with, and I'm still irritated at how our country responded when you guys and gals came home. I'm in my 30s, and I'm privileged to know several of you guys, and I'm still pissed about how many had the audacity to call you guys names, spit on you, all that shit. Fuck right off with that, many were drafted and had no choice.
@@PTurbo86 Thank you for the kind words, friend. Semper Fi.
@@PTurbo86 You should perhaps read up about the claims that people spat on Vietnam veterans or called them things like baby killers. There's a book by Jerry Lembcke called "The Spitting Image" that makes a good case for it being just another urban myth.
Lots of great content and great comments. One note of contention about ammo conservation: If you're clearing, say, Russian trenches here in Ukraine, you're using a lot of suppression fire to keep their heads down while another team approaches from another angle. And if this is your mission, you're not just sticking to NATO allotments. You're taking all you can carry and that's more than seven. Clear the trench, survive, then worry about more ammo. If you're carrying a AK74, then you're more likely to recover 545 ammo from dead Russians.
I'm really glad you bring up the hearing loss and tinnitus. One war film I recall that briefly delt with this is Good Morning Vietnam (yeah I'm old enough to have seen that when it came out in theatres). Robin Williams' character pretends like he's interviewing a guy from artillery who obviously does not hear well and who has no idea how loud he's speaking.
It’s called flanking
@@HWG-wm8ld Well, yes, but that's not what I was describing. Flanking merely refers to attacking a side, sides, or rear. There's no requirement for suppression fire for something to be flanking. It was the suppression fire I was talking about.
One thing I never understood is why a soldier passes a dead soldier without taking their ammo. This is in the depictions where they are isolated for long periods.
To make it worse when they are very low, they don't take the enemies guns or ammo which are in rich abundance!
I was surprised to find out that the movie about Audie Murphy was not realistic in that they didn't go *far enough!*
respect for the dead probably
A couple of reasons, potentially--
Different calibers/quality of ammo. No sense taking theirs if it doesn't fit your weapon, or if it's unreliable and likely to jam your weapon or misfire.
Familiarity with the weapon. Your life often depends on getting the first shot on target, which is a lot easier to do with a weapon you've trained with and can be really difficult with a weapon you've never handled before.
It's one of the reasons some Special Forces units train with a variety of weapons. They're going to be operating in the field for an extended period and very likely will only be able to re-arm with what they find out there, so they want to be accustomed to handling it, be familiar with how to clear it when jammed/clean it, etc.
But it should happen in movies more often than it does. I mean, if it's a choice between being unarmed in the middle of an active battlefield or picking up an unfamiliar weapon, I'd pick up the weapon and learn as I go. I'd just much rather stick with a weapon I know, however.
@@AllTradesGeorge
I was never saying to use their ammo in your rifle, or to abandon your rifle when you had plenty of ammo. I was saying your last paragraph.
I saw ONE movie where the dude picked up every weapon he passed. All he really needed was the ammo not all the rifles he picked up. All I remember is it was underground, tunnels or caves.
In the film” The longest day” the general played by Robert Mitchum , tells the title do that. Strip the dead.
@@juanmonge7418
_This is in the depictions where they are isolated for long periods._
The 'infinite ammo' thing is something I remember noticing around the first Avengers movie. People were scornful about Hawkeye because hey, when he runs out of arrows, then what? But nobody seemed to note that a gun-using character could also run out of ammunition, and *they* can't go collect their bullets for re-use as Clint does his arrows.
Well, one could go out and collect the used bullets. It'd be entertaining to see a character trying to fit even one into the chamber for a second go.
@@spvillano I would love that actually, as a background detail in a comedy movie
Clint is a marksman ... his use of a bow in combat is a choice, for the flexibility of ammunition. He's perfectly capable of using a handgun or rifle, and regularly carries a handgun at least, but he's just that GOOD a shot he CAN use a bow in combat.
In battles between indigenous American tribes, retrieval of arrows was commonplace as resources were never wasted and discarded. Smart European soldiers and settlers figured out how much the natives valued their arrows and left them where they lay...after they BROKE them. In a realistic battle involving bows and arrows as weapons, relatively few will be used and shots much more carefully aimed.
@@miketheskepticalone6285 I'm a marksman, expert shot actually. Bow, rifle, pistol, flatulence.
OK, maybe not accurate with flatulence. The CEP is murderous.
Bow is good for one thing, it's silent. Firearms tend to have supersonic shockwaves for each round fired (well, save for some, such as 45 ACP, which is pretty much always subsonic), giving a very distinctive crack when the round goes overhead.
Hollywood enjoyed that a lot and ran with it.
Now, with something like, oh say The Avengers movie, fighting the incoming army with a rifle would deplete even my 2200 - 2500 rounds in pack and magazines quickly, his quiver would be depleted in a minute or two. Then, he'd be somehow climbing down the building, running about frantically to recover arrows, then shit out arrowheads.
Trust me, they hurt when shat out.
As a hint, I'm 100% up to 50 meters with a .45 ACP out of a stock M1911A1. Equal with an M9, equal with an M4 or M16 and well, devastating with an M249 or M240. We'll not even talk about an M2, which has absolutely zero survivability level at that range with me.
And my recurve bow will put an arrow through a vital area around 90% of the time.
For me, a Bear 55 lb recurve.
So, for The Avengers, I'd dust off to orbit, then nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
The site being their launch site. I'm kind of a dick that way.
For me the biggest war movie myth (or almost any movie with firefights) is that the “bad guys” fall stone dead from a single shot, while the “good guys” can survive multiple hits and still keep firing. I think the truth is somewhere in between. It’s pretty hard to drop someone stone dead with a single shot unless you are an excellent marksman. I just watched Extraction and that might be the most egregious violation of the “good guy” surviving many GSW’s.
I saw the action scene where Helmsworth hides behind a metal ladder for cover! Come the ^&=÷ on! 😖 I'd include too how some SOF scenes or SF unit scenes have a "new guy" or last min replacement. Ummm no that does NOT occur in 99.9% of special ops, high risk missions. Teams or troops spend months or in some cases years in depth training, practice. JSOC isn't Craigslist or a labor board.
Keep in mind that the 5.56 NATO/.223 Remington is a much smaller and less powerful round than what was used in WWI and WWII. During that period many armies, especially the US Army, still pursued the idea of a "man-stopper" round that could down a man in one shot. The 5.56 NATO round was designed after WWII with wounding injuries in mind, with the hope that enemies would be forced to devote additional soldiers to carry away their wounded, though decades later the cartridge's high velocity was also found to be useful for the purpose of armor penetration. Both the .223 Remington and 5.56 NATO cartridges are common calibers for civilian varmint rifles, and it isn't really even suitable for hunting feral hogs, where hogs often require many shots to take down. I wouldn't consider using the AR-15 platform as a humane way to hunt anything besides small game, let alone humans in a war.
@@HenriFaust as much as I agree on the difference that need to be made between being hit by a bullet from the extremely powerful cartridge fired by WWII rifles and one from an intermediate caliber cartridge from an assault rifle, the 5.56x45mm being created with the intention to injure and not kill is a myth that has been debunked a while ago.
The US and NATO switched to the 5.56 for the same reason everyone else did : the power of a rifle caliber cartridge is unnecessary for most of the soldiers in basically any engagement giving the average range of said engagements (~300m tops).
And when it's needed support weapons firing the said rifle caliber cartridge are going to do the job better anyway.
In addition firing such a round means an heavy infantry weapon, heavy recoil, limited ammo load per combatant, any full auto capability is basically useless and a limited capacity for accurate and quick following shot for your average infantryman (mainly due to the recoil)
All of it became even more obvious in the jungles of Vietnam.
So it was decided to switch to an intermediate caliber cartridge (20 years after everyone discovered it was a great idea btw), which allowed a waaaayyy lighter weapon, way more ammo for the same weight or a much lighter load for the same quantity of ammunition, way lighter recoil allowing quicker and more precise following shots for way less training, a full auto capability.
You will never see a manual from any Western nations since the end of WWII (I mention this time limit because doctrines changed a lot offer WWII) where "injuring the enemy" is a thing.
In combat you always aim for the destruction of your enemy by all means.
If he end up injured, good for him.
But that's not the objective at all.
Not to mention that injuring an enemy to force his comrades to take care of him is only really a viable strategy when you're either losing or the non conventional force in an asymmetrical conflict.
Because if you're winning and advancing you end up being the one taking care of the wounded enemy, which would make quite the flawed strategy (and would quickly be in a dark grey area regarding international laws of warfare with anything related to inflicting unnecessary suffering to your enemy).
It's common as a varmint rifle round because it's cheap, plentiful, accurate, has way more range than a pistol round that would be as efficient at shorter range and has way less recoil and is way less louder than a rifle caliber cartridge.
It also allows for lighter rifles.
As for its use against hogs, you will easily find hunting footage of people using 5.56mm to hunt them, without having to dump rounds after rounds into it.
It's not ideal but easily feasible.
Not to mention that I'm pretty sure your greatly underestimate the difference in muscle and bone density between a human and a hog.
It's also use commonly on bigger games.
It's literally the caliber of the survival rifle of air crews.
It's made to kill and do it extremely well, and definitely a "human" way to do if there is such thing.
iirc the whole "made to injure" thing came from after action reports following the introduction of the M16 where you can see horrific pictures of the mutilated bodies of enemy soldiers.
Bullets would basically shatter or tumble a lot on impact but it was due to deffects with the ammunition initially issued with the weapon (which, with the design flaws of the original M16 and basically acts of sabotage from Army officials regarding the supposed self cleaning capacity of the weapon, is one of the main reasons why the M16 and 5.56 got such a bad rep when it was fielded).
that's more of a trope than a myth.
That's one of the things that I liked about Denzel Washington in "Man on Fire" (2004); his character got shot up and he never really recovered in the movie whereas if it'd been Bruce Willis in any of the Die Hard movies, he would've been fine by the next scene.
Another one thats funny; tanks cannot be operated single handedly. A lot of games and movies show a single person climbing into the top of a tank and driving, loading, and shooting the main gun of the tank simultaneously. A modern tank requires 2 people MINIMUM. A full Abram crew includes 4 people. Rambo 3 is pretty funny because hes shooting it from the drivers seat.
Of course there are exceptions, like the famous Swedish S-tank of the Cold War era, but that's an exception. And it still had crew of 3, its capability to be operated by one creman was for emergencies.
There was a time when stories were fables, or broader, morality tales about how to live - to live a good life and to live together, and the consequences of bad, immoral behaviour. It seems Hollywood has turned that on its head and the stories in movies now only serve the purpose of appealing to the most base human instincts in order to maximise profits for the movie companies. What a world we've created.
The movie that gets the sound of firearms right is Heat. That shootout in downtown LA is famous, and for good reason. It had the actors firing blanks, and the sound was recorded then and there with various microphones placed around the set to catch the sound echoing off the hard buildings, because director Michael Mann didn't like adding the sound in post. The cars they shoot were taken to a firing range and shot at with real guns, then the bulletholes were pasted over with putty that was blown off at the appropriate time for the shot. When Val Kilmer pauses to reload his M4, it's so accurate that the US military used it as a training video to show new recruits how to reload a rifle properly. It's basically the closest you can get to a real urban shootout without having the actors actually firing bullets at each other.
As an Instructor Trainer (SAIROC) in the Guard, I used clips from 12 O'Clock High in the 50 BMG class and Heat in the M16 class. I specifically pointed out Kilmer's reloads.
Load of rubbish...all Hollywood sounds are overly enhanced for dramatic purposes.
Having fought real battles in urban areas in Iraq in 2004 I can say 100% none of the gunfire in heat accurately depicts firing in urban environments including echos and near misses.
I hate to burst your bubble but fighting in streets in reality is far less dramatic sounding from small arms.
@@edbecka233taught by ex SAS Andy mcnab who advised of on the movie
@@MC14mayagreed. One thing movies always miss about (urban) shootouts are the range and angle of ricochets.
oh cmon!
When I used to go to the Saturday morning pictures, everyone used to count the rounds fired and a shout went out of “you’ve had your six” if ever someone’s revolver fired more than it should. Just to clarify that as a kid I used to get dropped off at the cinema on a Saturday morning while my parents did the shopping. The films were mainly cartoons and old westerns where the good guys wore white hats and the bad guys wore black hats in case you couldn’t work it out. The 1970s was a good time to be a kid.
Not to mention that they usually were loaded with only 5 rounds. The hammer resting on an empty chamber rather than a live round. You wouldn't stick that in your belt pointing at Billy Bob and the twins!
Early sixties, me and my sister would be given money to go to ABC minors Saturday morning, but it was to get us out of the way. My mum oned a gust house and Saturday was when she and 2 or 3 high school girls cleaned the vacated rooms stripping the beds and remaking them with fresh linen
John Wayne would always carry a 60 shooter😜. New movies can be remarkably accurate though. It’s a tough job as a continuity director even before ammo count is added.
HBO did the white hat/black hat thing for WestWorld too. that is a very recent show, that broke off, very weirdly from the source material in the last 2 seasons. ( not worth watching those. they pulled a "game of thrones" with how it ended)
I still do that with tv shows and movies... Wow you were able to continually blow off 16 rounds from that revolver!
8:08 is one I've noticed outside of typical war movies as well, like how Legolas never seems to run out of arrows. I definitely get why it's a thing as constantly showing characters re-loading their weapons- in Legolas's case, going back to retrieve his arrows out of orc bodies or something- would get boring fast, but it's definitely still weird to think about!
I always wondered about the hearing protection. I shoot guns regularly for recreation and cannot imagine firing any gun inside a room without hearing protection. Your ears would ring forever and you wouldn’t be able to hear anything. Even outdoors you really need earmuffs. Also my Dad was a WW2 .50 cal gunner on a B-17 and I recall him saying you only fire in short bursts, maybe 1-2 seconds. Otherwise your accuracy goes out the window, literally.
Also, your barrel melts.
WHAT!!??
I was on the track team in high school and some clown shot off a starter pistol in the locker room. I ran outside and was *deaf* for a solid minute.
Used to go to a shooting range too. Ear protection is MUST.
The “infinite ammo” issue really bugs me. Especially in WWII fighter plane scenes. For example, The P-51B Mustang had four 50 cal. guns. The outboard guns had 280 rounds each, the inboard guns had 350 rounds. So, it could fire for 21 seconds with all four guns, and a further five seconds with two guns only.
Maybe they're all secretly carrying solid snakes "infinite ammo" bandana 😂
My Father (WW2 vet) told me that automatic weapons were terrible because it was so easy to empty them so quickly that you could never have enough ammunition if you used them in auto mode.
Mustangs had six machine guns.
If my memory serves its also where the term "Whole Nine Yards" comes from, as each guns ammo belts were 27 feet long or 9 yards long.
@@teufelshunde4 Nah that was vickers (maxim) gun, and it was also a gallows humor take on a civilian phrase that came from bolts of cloth that were 9yds long that had been in usage since 19th century.
A thing that's also often neglected, especially during WW1: Gas attacks. Almost no movies actually use gas masks at all, characters don't even carry them. But reality, especially in WW1, Gas attacks were frequent from both sides.
Watch the recent remake of ‘All quiet on the western front’.
Often times in modern conflicts both sides are reluctant to use them thankfully, mainly because they are equal opportunity killers that have a lot of uncontrollable factors, and also because once the first party pulls that card out of their ass the other party will too. You will always have an order declaring your level of responsiveness to gas-attacks and most of the time it's non-existant or low, meaning you don't have to have the mask with you because there is no expected CBRN threat.
The only time I used a gas mask was with the National Guard during the 2 week training. Rangers were always throwing tear gas grenades.
@@AtheistOrphan Watch the 79 version instead
The movie "War Horse" does feature a gas attack by the Germans on their own front trenches after their capture by the British - together with the casualties incurred.
Having served 4 years in the US ARMY Infantry i can say the M-16 is freaking Loud. But at Graf my first time at a live fire exercise i figured i could hear better without my ear plugs. Oh how mistaken i was, when we opened up on our targets and one was an M-60 Machine Gun about 2 feet away from me and WOW, THAT WAS FN LOUD. But what was worse was when i was told i didn't get me Protective mask on fast enough and and was dead and had to be put in an M-113. Well the TC opened fire with the M-2 .50cal Machine gun and HOLY BLEEP THAT WAS F'ING LOUDER THAN THE M-60 was and my ears rang for minutes later after all the shooting was done. Still didn't learn and went to many ranges without them and regret it today 35 yrars later. Oh well its done now and yes guns are Freakin damn loud.
Just like, when in a movie, if a car falls off a cliff and rolls down, it ALWAYS ends in a dramatic fiery explosion. When in reality, when a car rolls off a cliff, it just rolls down and eventually stops.
One of the many things that I found so satisfying about the movie Greyhound (I'm a former destroyerman) was the depiction of how finite the supply of depthcharges was on a destroyer, and how rapidly they could be expended.
I'm always looking for movies like that and forgot about Greyhound, thanks for the reminder and recommendation.
To your point about hearing loss, B-25 crews in WW2 suffered hearing damage at an abnormally high rate. There was even an old story that you could tell the pilot and copilot of a B-25 crew apart by which ear they were deaf in.
True, that was mainly because the engines were close to the pilots, They did some modifications eventually that helped but not that much.
All of those films he talked about were modern movies, but I would imagine that he would be more likely to find more accuracy in movies from the golden era of hollywood (~1930s-1950s) especially films made by one of my all time favorite directors Ishiro Honda who, on top of making many documentaries and being notorious for making his films as acurate as possible, also actually seeved in the Japanese military from 1935 to 1945.
I counted in an old movie, a good guy carried a Colt Single Action Army, 6 shots normally carried with 5 rounds the chamber under the hammer empty. This is to prevent an accidental discharge. The hero fired 25 rounds in a gun fight and they never showed him reloading.
Guns with infinite ammunition are a common movie trope
@@fistinyourface7053 Yep, it still looks stupid to me a Revolver with infinite ammo
Load 1, skip 1, load 4 (so 5 rounds with the under the hammer empty) is a modern convention. Colt designed the SAA to be carried fully loaded on the 1st cock notch. Our modern sensibilities find this less than safe.
@@Rocketsong Yep, that is how I do it
I thought one of the silliest scenes was in Dunkirk where a group of British soldiers hide in an abandoned boat sitting on the beach. They don't post any lookout and sit in the bottom of the boat with no hope of any retreat if attacked. I guess it made for an interesting place to shoot a scene, but any soldier with any training or half a brain would never pick such a death trap to hole up in.
You would be surprised what stupidity young men will engage in when they are scared and not very well trained (in 1939, the only well trained armies were the German, Spanish, Finnish and Japanese armies. Every other army's enlisted men and company grade officers were either barely trained newbs or veterans of WW1 or early post-WW1 wars (e.g. Polish-Ukranian war) whose lessoning learned were no longer applicable except for reaction to incoming artillery fire.
It's so crazy it might've worked, lol.
I lt did happen though, I've just read Robert Kershaws Dunkirkchen and the event is mentioned by a German soldier combing the beach
@@jameseadie7145 Thanks for updating. Seemed farfetched but sounds like it happened.
@buddykerr1 he's a good author read three of his books. He was also in 3 para in the same barracks I was in, so I've probably saluted him
One that always bothers me in movies is land mines. They trigger when you step on them, and not when you step off of them. If you step on a landmine and hear a click, it's too late. Unless the mine is a dud or has a faulty trigger or fuse, they blow up pretty much immediately.
There is an exception: certain Bounding Mines. They either have delayed fuses or pressure-release fuzes in their propulsion charge which propels them out of the ground to waist height before their primary charge detonates. By how they're designed and used having the propulsion charge detonates while someone's foot is potentially still on the bounding mine, being too heavy and thus keeping it in the ground, effectively turns it from crippling an entire squad of around 10 people (and by extension the entire platoon that must tend to them) into a single casualty that dies and can be ignored until after combat.
@Edin116 Oh, I didn't know about the pressure-release type! I thought those just had a delayed trigger.
@@Aaron-from-BroTrio I could be wrong about the pressure-release as I'm going from memory off of a TV documentary I saw almost a decade ago. I could be confusing it with a secondary fuse used for anti-tamper/removal that would still initiate the propulsion charge.
I was checking wikipedia after I made the reply and wikipedia only has a limited list of bounding mines with even fewer details (with some missing fuse type). Delays on certain models are explicitly listed for some on it, others don't seem to have any delay, while others seem to be command detonated. Bounding Mines tend to be tied to tripwires but are designed to also be activated with their regular prongs or plunger (can't recall the term for the vertical extruding part) being disturbed which would necessarily mean at minimum a delay being needed but ideally would be accompanied by a pressure release to initiate the delay in some circumstances where there is Y-axis pressure but not X-axis or Z-axis pressure. The newer electronic integrated circuit landmines being developed definitely have that capability along with several others that fall under anti-tamper/disarm that are too numerous for me to list, but orientation, excess pressure (such as from antimine flails to avoid detonation), magnetic field detection (to blow up when a mine detection instrument is used), etc are just a few.
@@Edin116 Bouncing Betty
And when they do blow up in movies, people get immediately pulverized 😂😂
I refuse to believe every vehicle doesn't explode when defeated. Video games taught me that.
Very informative, thank you. You’re right about the artillery. I’m a 3rd generation Artillery officer. Even Patton, the famous tank commander, said “You don’t need to tell me who won the war, the artillery did!” I would add bomber planes to that but it’s the same principle.
I served in Peacetime, but I still suffered hearing loss and I have Tinnitus. Almost as painful was dealing with Veterans Affairs.
Another thing not covered in War movies is 'Hurry up and wait,' which is the time spent doing absolutely nothing because the people above you in the chain haven't got their shit together.
The Thin Red Line portrays that fun parts of "hurry up and wait," along with the "holy shit, it's happening."
Boredom interspaced with terror
I went to the range with a friend one time, in between magazines we took off our hearing protection to chat (off one ear, not completely).
When I reloaded and fired, I soon realised that I had forgotten to put mine back on that ear.
It is incredibly painful and unbelievably loud, and that was just with a 9 mm.
My friend laughed, and was like "yeah I did that once with a .44"
You don't make that mistake twice.
Shooting a .223 without hearing protection will give you instant tinnitus and muffled hearing for half a day.
@@dinoflagella4185 yeah, I am not recommending doing it.
I swear in the first few seconds my vision went whack too
In Iraq our issue combat load was 210 rounds in 7 magazines like he said. But all of us always obtained extra mags, as many as we could carry. I had a 20 rounder taped to the stock of my M-4. I also carried 5 or 6 30 rounders in my pockets. On a mounted patrol, we carried even more. In my CHU back on base I had a captured AK with several magazines, and I would bring that on mounted patrols as well.
I feel like tanks are often portrayed as invincible in movies, but in some war musea they have tanks that were used in WW2 combat... Those things have hundreds of holes from machineguns, no doubt that being inside of a tank is not safe at all.
my old dad, once told me a story of trying to hold a crossroads somewhere in Egypt, he was in the royal artillery but on that day had orders not to fire, just hold a crossroads with rifles, so his unit stood there, knowing the civilians could overrun them at any time, and they had strict orders to not fire at the civilians, so all they could do was fire over their heads and hope for the best......this worked and he survived to come home and make me
@TheMichaelJacksonFactChannelWho were these hostiles and who did he save by "mowing them down"? Was this in the early 80s?
What about your new dad? Did he have any stories?
@TheMichaelJacksonFactChannelah yes the classic mowing down citizens of a foreign nation 1000s of miles away, to save a life of a person who doesn't even know there is a war there.
@TheMichaelJacksonFactChannel This sounds like the premise of the "Rules of Engagement" starring Samuel L Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones
@@HenrikH568I get some kind of amusement convincing people I or someone close to me in TH-cam comments have lived the life of whatever movie I just watched.
It's super entertaining calculating how gullible people are
Not "war movies" per say, but one of my pet peeves is in historical or fantasy movies when you have two armies clash and the battle lines instantly dissolve and suddenly everyone is just fighting in a big unorganized mosh pit melee. Every. Single. Time. And the number of times I've heard people unironically try to say "that's just what hand to hand battles were like back then" gives me a migraine just thinking about it.
This.
When the protagonists don't wear a helmet either.
LOTR does this. Apart from cavalry charges, every mid-battle scene looks like a bar brawl.
@@stu8642 Same in the Battle Brothers video game. Try to charge the other side without maintaining formation and/or not wearing any head armor whatsoever. See how that works for ya.
Exactly! Also when both sides line up in a shield wall, the commander gives a rousing speech from his horse (that somehow the entire massive army can hear perfectly, then both sides scream at the top of their lungs then run at full sprint towards each other until colliding at full speed then fighting (as you say) in a giant melee. It's absurd.
A comedy like Kelly's Heroes was most accurate with tanks. It just broke down at the end.
In 1980 I went through basic training at Ft Benning. We fired on a moving target range. We were given 120 rounds (6 120 round mags) semi-automatic fire only. The targets popped up from 300 meters in to 50 meters and then moved backwards. There was a mix of moving targets and static targets (representing covering fire) Before the targets had moved all the way in, most guys were out of ammo, this was within 2 minutes. I had rounds left because I quickly realized that the odds of hitting moving targets at the longer ranges were minimal and saved my ammo for close in targets, Also at some point I decided to fire first at the static targets because they represented a current threat whereas the runners were a future threat. I kept track of where they hit the ground because the next round of movement, a static target popped up there.
We were told that the course record was 9 hits. I had 3. I found that I learned a lot that they were not explicitly teaching me, and would have liked a couple more cracks at it to see how much following my tactical lessons would improve my score. However, only half the lanes were functioning. We were told that Congress had not pass enough money to maintaint the range and they had shut lanes down to cannibalize parts to keep the other lanes going. It was likely they would close it down in the next year. In 28 years, I never ran into anyone else who fired on that range.
im so glad you mentioned the water bullets. this was something i learned in the military and nothing bothers me more than seeing characters taking hits while underwater.
@@highcountrydelatitenot really
@@highcountrydelatite this video mentioned Myth Busters disproving this one. They even fired the almighty .50 BMG into the pool, a weapon that can punch a bullet through a V8 engine block. The round disintegrated on impact. Water 1 BMG 0. Which is why naval vessels use depth charges against submarines.
Seriously, I never knew thst it was a myth. Darn, lots of movies use it
Did y’all see that video of “experts react” and it’s some special forces soldier? The interviewers asked him about this, you know, “But mythbusters say you can’t get hit underwater.”
His response? “I’ve seen people shot in the f$$$$$$ing water.”
So, whatever.
@@johnroux7528 Yeah, I've tested watershooting with gallon jugs filled with water, and even powerful rifle cartridges havent made it beyond the 4th or maybe 5th jug in my testing.
Basically you'd have to be on top of the water or just beneath it to be in any real danger.
The infinite ammo one is what I notice the most, and I see it in war movies, cop movies, and spy movies. One thing that struck me in "Saving Private Ryan" was the long penetration through water in the scene where the jump over the sides of the landing craft. I had always heard what you said about 3 feet or so of water stopping bullets, but I attributed it to those being high velocity weapons. On the other hand, far more often I see the opposite, where someone uses a corpse or a captured enemy soldier as a shield to stop bullets. Most bullets would go right through the corpse and the man behind and kill him.
There is an Easter egg in 'Saving Private Ryan' a lot of people dont know. When the US troops land on D-Day and the enemy soldiers surrender two of the soldiers actually say in Czech, “Please don’t shoot me! I am not German, I am Czech, I didn’t kill anyone! I am Czech!" They were shot anyway in the chaos and Spielberg decided to not use subtitles so a lot of people dont know the context how they were conscripted from Czechoslovakia.
Mythbusters did it with supersonic rounds. Faster they're going the harder they hit that water. Surface tension is a bitch. That's why you die when you hit the water jumping off a bridge. You might as well jump off a building and hit pavement.
Or hiding behind a car. Duck behind that Toyota car door and you’re safe from pretty much any projectile.
A 22lr will go through a car door.
They got infinite ammo until the prime moment when they're backed in the corner, look into each others eyes, "I'm out, you?" *Checks magazine* "Got two rounds left" And then they do something stupidly dangerous that works but is still stupid.
@@Alexandre-sz2jb Thanks, but I'd rather not be a servant of a figment of a pedophile's imagination.
Full marks to Harry Callahan who can never remember whether he fired five or six bullets in all the excitement...
They f*cked up the editing in that scene... he actually fires off 7 shots 😂
I'm not shocked that fiction isn't historically accurate.
I think the biggest myth is that you can see the enemy most of the time. Particularly in Afghanistan, I almost never saw who was shooting at us. They were far away and in cover most of the time, and after the first few rounds, I wasn't keeping my head up for too long to go searching for them.
To a not yet served person seems true enough. Even currently, .ost UFL ((Ukraine) fighters say in interviews - they _never_ faced a living Russian(ist) soldier.
So is it even common to hit enemy soldiers at all? Or is the main point of gunfire to suppress them and hold them in position until something else (e.g. artillery or air support) takes them out?
@HaganeNoGijutsushi They get hit all right, but it's usually hard to say who hit them. Most of the time you find evidence of injuries (blood marks, used med kit etc) or a body when you move through an occupied position, but you can't tell who shot them. Obviously there are close range contacts that are different, but it's not like the movies. Most of the time in recent conflicts, small arms fire is used to fix the enemy until you can get CAS or IDF to mallet them.
In Vietnam, most firefights were 20 ft - ambushes, jungle - short exchanges as VC knew they would get heavy fire if they waited too long - which is why they started to 'hug their belt': stay so close to US troops that they can not call in artillery. Still, shooting at some 'green wall' was pretty frustrating, not seeing the enemy - but getting shot at from concealed bunkers - or snipers high up in trees.
A very accurate video, Simon. As a retired officer and military historian, you did a very good job. With respect to hearing, there is a syndrome known as "tanker's ear", as tanks are very noisy when you are inside, and that is just driving them. When the gun fires, it is much worse, and then there are the propellant fumes venting into the tanks as well. The same problem with hearing loss occurs with the artillery as well. A 155mm howitzer is incredibly loud if you are not wearing ear plugs, which also means that orders are hard to hear.
Oh, but that ammonia type smell that comes back in is AWESOME! And shooting the main gun is AWESOME! I always said it would totally be unfair if the reenlistment NCO tried to get guys to reenlist while we were doing our tank tables... Oh, and standing outside and near a tank is a little remeniscent of being hit by a semi when the main gun fires.
I grew up around drag cars and I promise, an open header Big Block is hell on your ears. I know tanks are even louder but im sure the everyday Joe isnt used to hearing intensely loud sounds like that
I never had hearing issues in my tank, just sore ears from the CVC, only once had fumes come inside through the breach due to a busted bore evacuator. 10years as an M1A1 crewman.
@@Pazuzu6 You never smelled a sort of ammonia smell when you fired the main gun? Maybe they improved bore evacuation and the use of the overpressurization system on newer tanks. I got out right after Desert Storm... M1A1HA.
We used earplugs that basically blocked high frequency sounds, so shooting was more of a "thump", while you could hear human voice no problem, albeit as if it was very low quality transmision :)
THANK YOU! I'm a veteran and seriously offended by the BS of movies. I've seen many movies & TV shows where bullets bounce off corrugated sheet metal. Then there's the A-Team type of scenes where bullets bounce off windshields and throw sparks as they do so. The dangerous thing is people actually believe that stuff. PEOPLE telling veterans what we "should've done" in a situation seems to put THEM at risk of bodily harm. After WW2 there were SO MANY veterans that the civilians had a reasonable understanding of what war was like--most people had a father, brother, or son who had been in combat. Now... people rely on movies to tell them what the REAL WORLD is like.
Honorable mention yet a huge one: Generals in WWI, especially on the Entente. They were not lazy and incompetent like many movies make them out to be. Trench warfare is a _really_ complicated subject, and it's not as though you can just go around the trenches. Trust me, they tried, and it didn't work. Without any knowledge of how to deal with such deep defenses, they were forced to brute force the problem by trying literally anything that seemed plausible.
The fact that they lived in chateaus was also not because they were lazy, but because chateaus were linked extensively to France's telegraph network, and generals required a way to quickly relay information across their entire area of operations.
Yes and no. Some of them actually were horribly incompetent and failed to grasp that you can't win on fighting spirit alone. Battles of Isonzo spring to mind (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_the_Isonzo), all of them following pretty much the same plan as previous.
Of course for France/England generals reasonably quickly started to accept the reality of the war they were in, but early days of trench war were full of incompetence. (Not a surprising thing today, but one would expect better from people who were supposed to be professionals at warfare).
Most films have a military advisor who really should point out these mistakes. Having said that I suspect that they try to fix them but are overruled for cinematic effect.
Advisors are there to tell the higherups what they want to hear.
Otherwise they're not doing much advising.
...
For the record, i'm aware that this isn't how it should work, but it is how it works. Not just for movies either, but in pretty much all fields.
Almost every movie has someone with a military history as an advisor. Unfortunately directors usually choose what looks nice on screen over accuracy.
You'd think. But no. I can't remember the gentlemans name, but I met a former Army officer who did advising for several hollywood movies. He said he learned very early to keep his mouth shut. If you keep pointing out issues, they'll never hire you again.
Directors don't want accurate, they want their vision on film. If that vision is a 1911 firing over 100 rounds in full auto, that's what they'll do. So he got clever and instead of pointing out weapon inaccuracies and such, he'd point out smaller things the director wouldn't care about. "No, they'd have the canteen on this side on this mission." "The troops would set up sleeping bags there in case of rain." etc... Even then, he said most directors would argue every single thing he mentioned. And if the director isn't happy with you, your career is over.
@@Volvith Lindybeige has something on just this. th-cam.com/video/aJFFLvwNLlM/w-d-xo.html
@F22PLTJR It's an industry made of nepotism and egotism. So I am not surprised.
One movie that got ammo conservation right was Lone Survivor. I remember being really impressed with how the firefights didn't just have an endless roar of gunfire and shouting.
Why are you still using TH-cam if you hate Google so much?
I think that has to do with the concept of the movie. It is a movie about survival and making sure the audience knows that adds to the verisimilitude of the story.
It's because Marcus Luttrell was heavily invested in making sure the story of his fallen brothers was told accurately
Yeah they were picking and choosing for that movie, they got the gunfights correct but they got the details wrong like how it was 10 guys that rolled up on them not 200.
@@samuelpetrovich4998that’s why he massively overinflated the number of guys that attacked them, and omitted the part about him being found with a full combat load?
You forgot about landmines not exploding when you step on them, but only exploding once you step off of them.
The greatest inaccuracy in movie concerns the effects of artillery shells and bombing on people. If there is a group of soldiers in a trench, a field, and an artillery shell falls and explodes in the midst of the group you always see everyone falling backwards and playing dead but the effect of the explosion in the real world is far more destructive. In the same case you wont see anyone after the smoke clears up, no bodies lying on the grounds, just some body parts spread around. Of course filmmakers couldn't imitate this effect in traditional, pre-CGI, movies except using human size dolls but in any case I don't think they liked to show the real thing anyway.
I've been through two wars (combat in AFG and int support in UKR). The biggest myth I've seen is how movies show every soldier engaging in constant firefights. The truth is that most troops won't ever even see an enemy combatant, let alone discharge their weapons. The movie Jarhead is the best portrayal I've seen of an actual war: lots of sitting around being yelled at by a bored Sergeant Major.
As a career infantryman, the one that annoys me the most is the landmine that only goes off only if you lift your foot after stepping on it. In reality, anti-personnel landmines are activated as soon as you step on the pressure plate or prongs. They either detonate as soon as you step on them, or have a short delay - regardless of whether your foot has moved. (The German S-Mine and US M-16 mines are examples of the types with short delays, and the delay was necessary because they were 'bouncing' mines.) You see this as a silly dramatic ploy in so many movies.
Ed Shames, the last surviving officer of Easy Company, Tells about the time he was walking down the road and decided to use two tanks as shields. He said:
"I was still trying to locate F Company and had been shadowing the tanks for about 20 seconds. Suddenly a couple of 75mm rounds slammed through the lead vehicle and into the tank directly behind it. The shots had been fired at point-blank range and the lightly armored M5s didn’t stand a chance. The explosions were terrific and a blast of searing heat threw me to the ground, scorching my face and eyebrows. As the third tank started backing out I picked myself up and ran. My clothes were smoldering and ears ringing but other than that I was OK. Making my way back to the radio operator, I realized that, yet again, I’d been very lucky."
Gardner, Ian. Airborne: The Combat Story of Ed Shames of Easy Company (p. 89). Bloomsbury Publishing. Kindle Edition.
For those interested in realistic war movies, I recommend Finnish war movies. There is a great film about the Winter War (Talvisota, 1989), and also modern day version of the Unknown Soldier had probably the most realistic battle scenes of any movie to date, although the in terms of storytelling the 1955 original probably does a better job than the 2017 version. Its' not that the modern version is bad, it's just that the original is surprisingly good for a 1955 film made in a poor country.
If movie makers studied the military they would know that prior to comms sets carried by all soldiers it was mainly hand gestures that were used for communication as they could be seen from a distance away and everyone understood them
they're still used today, but in more limited fashion.
My granddad from WW1 spoke of signal flags.
True, but the average movie-goer won't understand what those signals mean/represent, hence why it's oversimplified.
On platoon level, it was (and still is) relying command by every soldier. Every time you hear a command, you just shout it for every one who could have missed it.
One of the biggest from films and games is that if you're outside the blast radius of a FRAG (key term there!) grenade then you'll be fine. Not considering that whole FRAG aspect....Shrapnel generally is consistently ignored in fiction. This idea that if you aren't magically thrown in the air by a blast wave then there's nothing to worry about.
Also, regarding rounds hitting water- remember the HIGHER the velocity, the LESS they will penetrate. Sounds counter intuitive but the friction multiplies.
I remember seeing a Mythbusters episode where they fired a 50 caliber bullet into the water yet couldn't find it. The impact had destroyed it. It was really eye-opening how shooting into water could slow down bullets.
Also thats if they don't ricochet off the water haha
@@Paul_WetorIt also makes black powder muskets great guns for shooting into the water.
An ex-Royal Navy sailor told me they used submachine guns sub-sonic ammunition for ship security in harbor because it would penetrate 6 to 10 feet to take out any swimmers near the hull.
@@Paul_Wetoryup but the 9mm and shotgun traveled throught the water just fine when the Mythbusters shot those
Juice is a classic but the amount of times that revolver is fired makes me laugh every time
The A4 doesn't blast all bullets with a single pull of the trigger. At full-fire mode the A4 and the M16 along with their other iterations are limited to a 3 round burst. You have to keep pulling the trigger to unload a magazine.
I thought Artillery was very well depicted in the series Band of Brothers especially in the "Breaking Point" episode. It looked like hell raining down on the allied troops, trees exploding all around you, and no way of fighting back, all you could do is hunker down in your fox hole and pray. Literally a lottery if you lived or died.
But yes, its true, aside from this example, I cannot think of a single film or TV series which depicts this horrific aspect of war.
It makes me shudder to think this is going on right now in eastern Europe.
A bridge too far has an excellent creeping barrage scene before 30 Core tanks move off.
Was that the one where a German dud shell landed right in the foxhole?
@@nttntjno1797- Yep that's the one.
The 1979 movie "All Quiet on the Western Front" had a memorable scene where the soldiers are sheltering in a bunker through a days long artillery barrage. Safe, but scared. One soldier is driven mad by the noise and runs out only to die in the bombardment. The common element I've noticed is that war movies that stay faithful to a soldier's diary depict artillery as a major factor.
@@bigbrowntau An excellent film sir, One of the main effects of artillery wasn't to kill even though a lot did. It was psychological, Its to keep the enemy in cover. There's a thing called a barrage hangover, where troops were very reluctant to get out of the bunker when the shelling had stopped. Interesting to read about but also terrifying to imagine.