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.
@@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”
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.
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."
@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
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.
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
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.
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.
@@DanDanDoeI 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
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).
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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
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…
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.
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."
@@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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
TWD zombies being a threat at all, imagine a zombie horde against a bradley, even a .50cal armed M113 would clean a street. The US army completely being deleted and groups of people surviving is dumb
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
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My grandfather, a French soldier, had been made prisoner by the Germans and sent to Stalag in Germany, then to work in farms in Poland. He was 'freed' by the Russians... They first sent him to the front to fight for them, then was sent to Siberia, in a gulag. He came back on his own, way after the war, to the surprise of everyone as he was reported as KIA. To his last day, he never talked about what happened in Russia, but years after the war, a Russian dignitary came over during a visit in France (northern France was quite communist at the time). He apparently did ask around if my grandfather had talked about his time in Siberia.
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.
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)
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?
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.
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.
@@DeepCFisherwho told mags are disposable? Typically, an infantry soldier would carry 8 mags, so when he’s “ disposed” all 8 mags, what does he use? The last thing you do is ditch your mags, you recharge them whenever you can.
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.
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.
One of the single best series ever released. First watched parts of it during history lessons at high school. Recently watched the entire thing again on TH-cam. Brilliant! ..and thank you! I know this sounds remarkably stupid but I hadn't realised it was Lawrence Olivier narrating! Knew the voice (and what a voice it was!) but never put 2&2 together...or paid attention to the credits apparently 😅
The "Final Solution" and "Japanese POW" episodes should be compulsory viewing for every school child in the world. We would here a lot less complaints about the bombing campaign in Europe and the atom bombs in Japan if people knew what the Germans and Japanese were doing.
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.
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.
@@221b-l3t 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.
@@221b-l3t 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.
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.
@@PilatusTurbo 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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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)
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
@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.
@@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
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.
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 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.
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.
for real, Arty teams NEVER get the credit they deserve! most people likely don't realize the amount of teamwork required, and strength involved.....105mm be heavy LOL
There is a ww1 movie my history teacher put on for us once it was the pinnacle of realism the entire hour is spent waiting for an attack by the Germans on the British trenches apart from the mission to kidnap a German soldier halfway through nothing happens there is about 40 gunshots in the entire movie mostly from a machine gun during the mission when the final battle arrives everyone readies themselves only for every character to be killed by arty the final scene informs us over footage of German soldiers walking around the destroyed line that the area was recaptured by the British about a week later
Most war movies -- like most "action" movies -- portray dramatic battles between "good guys" and "bad guys" but, at least since the First World War, most of the wartime killing has been impersonal. Artillery crews, bomber crews, submarine crew typically don't even see the people who they kill. That doesn't fit the typical narrative structure of the movie, so it's de-emphasized.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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 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.
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.
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.
@@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
the military addressed this problem already because of units expending too many rounds too fast. in war things escalate really fast, the anxiety response means you have to fight the flight or fight response, the physical result is your hands start to shake, your breathing increases, you start sweating and your ability to do simple tasks takes longer it feels like your trying to run but everywhere is filled with water and things slow down. this also effects accuracy and situational awareness and counting the rounds in your rifle. so the solution is a selector switch that changes fire settings from single shot, burst, full auto. another solution is called tactical breathing, inhale long and slow for 5 seconds, hold 5 seconds, release 5 seconds do 5 reps. always do a full body scan starting at your toes and working to the top of your head to ground yourself this fights the amygdala hijack response. if you are going into a situation where the stress is going to be high start your breathing before the onset of the amygdala hijack and breath before, during, and after the high stress situation. if you start to freeze focus on a small task then snow ball that into a more complex task and break the freeze/fight/flight response.
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.
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.
@@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.
My take as an ex Infantry soldier. 1. Weapons always work and ammo never runs out. No 2. Your leaders make good decisions often. Sometimes 3. Sergeants are wiser and more experienced than officers (sometimes true however) 4. It’s all merit based. No 5. Grenades. Far more louder and dangerous than in movies. 6. Soldiers have a green light to intimidate, harm, or even sexually assault people at will. (extreme punishments for that stuff in the military) 7. Everyone is a combat soldier. Most modern, western armies need about 15 non combat soldiers to have a single combat arms soldier. 8. A tank, jet, missile, something will always come in and help when needed. Will never happen. You go in with whatever support you have. 9. Soldiers have a say and everyone knows what’s going on. Truth is few soldiers have a voice and even fewer know what’s going on at all. Most are completely blind to any objective. 10. Fighting is large scale. Rarely is modern warfare conducted at large scale. Small groups of soldiers are usually operating in small elements and attacking small objectives. 11. If hungry simply take some local persons livestock. That’s a warfare violation and you eat the shit they give you. 12. Soldiers spend downtime getting drunk in a tent and talking shit to each other. No, soldiers sit on cots and are constantly given bullsh😢it details and it’s like taking your boss home with you. And one more….. Helicopters. Comfortable, safe, stable, and if you wanna talk simply raise your voice a little bit. Truth: They are cramped, painful, very dangerous, and are deafening. We used hand signals only in helicopters. Blackhawk’s were better but still bad. Huey’s, OMG, you can’t hear yourself think.
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
@@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.
As combat infantryman in Vietnam I tossed my fair share of grenades. Unlike the movies they do explode but not in great balls of fire (what you see is dirt and dust and shrapnel expanded around the blast.)
I have ZERO combat experience , but a friend is a surgeon at a VA hospital. Through him I learned a fair amount . When he asked the vets that wanted to talk what the movies can't get across , almost all of them said it was the smells . They said no matter how brave a soldier is , in serious fights people crap and wet themselves involuntarily . Just a biological reaction. And the other was what can best be described as "industrial" smells . Metal on metal, burning fuels , rubber , different propellants from various munitions . I think the truest words I have ever spoken are "I can't imagine what that's like" . Can't even pretend to .
One thing that gets left out is that muscles relax on death - someone who's just died will void their bowels and bladder. That rank cesspit smell as well as the smell of burning blood (especially blood burning on heated metal) are two smells you really don't ever forget. I got plenty of both when I worked volunteer search and rescue for a number of years, and helped locate a pair of small aircraft that had gone down in the mountains over that time. It's been almost 20 years and I can still remember both of those smells vividly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As someone who has served before. Thank you for doing all is a service and explaining what things can really be like for those on the battle field. It is really nice to watch a video where the military is not crapped on from a political standpoint and to simply have some highly accurate explanations of what we have gone through.
I don't crap on veterans. I crap I the bloodthirsty cosplayers that send my fellow citizens to go and die or get traumatized, but who never have to go to war and whose children never go to war.
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.
Interestingly, Dunkirk tends to do a pretty decent job at portraying the Spitfire's ammo capacity, showing 2 seconds bursts and generally keeping to around 7-9 bursts per plane. This lines up with both the pilot's training and the Spitfire's (Mk. 1) ammo capacity of 2800 rounds (350 rpg) and a sustained fire rate of 1150 rpm. (Although I do certainly agree that most movies are rather … relaxed when it comes to ammo capacity on aircraft.)
@andym9571 I think it was actually done in the war though. Probably not so intentionally, but I'm sure somebody ran out of fuel somewhere and got a lucky stealth kill on a passing enemy as they were preparing for a soft landing or bail-out.
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!
@@Rubelessit 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.😊
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.
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.
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
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.
lol so I listened again and I know you meant 87% suffered hearing impairment but the percent didn’t make it into the dialogue. So it became the number 87. I bet the VA agrees with you based on how much they love saying “your injuries aren’t service related” lol. Love the video Simon good work as always.
Another common mistake in films that deal with 19th century and earlier artillery is the complete lack of recoil when firing. Years ago, I was aboard the Susan Constant out of Jamestowne on a trip up the Chesapeake. We were out in the middle of the Bay and decided to do some live firing exercises with the ship's cannons which are falcons (roughly 3 pound balls) if I recall correctly. The gunner decided to see what would happen if we fired the gun without the breech rope. We loaded a charge 1/3rd the normal size and stood well back. When fired, the gun recoiled across the deck until it hit the coaming surrounding the main hatch. Had it been a full charge, the cannon would undoubtedly have ended up in the hold. I have also live fired muzzle loading field artillery, and the recoil is equally great. And of course there are the explosions when the shot being fired is a solid ball with no explosive charge whatsoever. I enjoyed this very much, but feel constrained to point out that it's spelled 'casualties', not 'cassualties'. Sorry, can't help myself. ;
I was at a military show where a smokeless powder 57mm artillery blank with only half a charge was fired. Man, even that had quite the shock and noise. Set off peoples car alarms. I spoke to somebody who lived in the neighborhood years later. He said stuff would get knocked off of his shelves in the house from it.
and you just answered your own mistake critique; if they used real ammo and full charges people would get hurt making the movies. It is amazing to me people don't get this.
No offense, but moviemakers do far more dangerous things with and without explosives all the time. Avoiding injury is a matter of taking safety very seriously whenever you're dealing with firearms, cannons, explosives et hoc genus omne. Nor is it necessary to fire live ammo or use a full charge to simulate recoil. Particularly with the advances in CGI.@@RTStx1
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.
The clicky-clicky noises that every firearm makes whenever they get pointed at anything, the constant racking of weapons (especially when it's a pump shotgun and you can literally see the live shell getting ejected that nobody in the continuity department seemed to notice), and especially the sparking of bullets from everything that they hit. Those are usually the trifecta of bullshit action movies that tell me it's likely directed by someone who doesn't care enough to pay attention to details and I should take it seriously. Which is fine with your typical popcorn summer action flicks, but which really grinds my goat when it comes to a supposedly "historical" movie.
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.
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.
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.
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.
When I was going through basic training we fired the 3.5 inch rocket launcher (a bigger bazooka) and the LAAW (Light Anti Armor Weapon.) The rocket launcher was very loud but most of the noise was behind us. The LAAW was a thin aluminum tube...and it was enormously louder...and right by your ear. That was in the summer of 1969. My ears started ringing then...and they still do today. Permanent tinnitus. They didn't pass out earplugs then. I heard a lot louder in Vietnam. I agree...the noise of battle is overwhelming. And even if you don't get hit you can feel the shock wave of a rocket or artillery hit from yards away.
Right at midnight in my country. You destroy my sleep cause I can't sleep without watching a few of your videos. Your voice has become a midnight addiction. Still love you Simon you are awesome.
I've watched a couple of Vietnam movies with my dad who served two tours in Vietnam. He's giving me knowledge on what was factual and what was pure Hollywood.
I saw The Green Berets and thought it was almost a comedy. The level of accuracy is exemplified by the last scene, which has the sun setting in the east.
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.
@@Rubeless 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.
There was one in the series about the Vietnam war called Tour of Duty. The actor who played the sergeant said that a veteran told him: you are walking too close to each other! In Vietnam we walked far apart for safety. To which the actor replied: we know that, but then everybody will not fit on the screen!
Speaking of Vietnam, my favorite Vietnam movie is apocalypse now, because of how accurately they depict the true nature of the war. The napalm strikes so close you could smell them, and the civilians evacuating next to said napalm. The random concert they come across in the middle of the jungle, the camp where the commanding officer got killed by a mine and order has broken down, the last base they come across which is just constantly under siege. The rogue soldier leading a cult in Cambodia. Utter madness and I love it for that
Speaking of which, and on the artillery issue, there is the pilot episode where Lt. Goldman is trying to rally the platoon to charge the treeline they're taking rifle fire from and Sgt Anderson pulls him down so they can call their big friend, artillery, to deal with the issue.
Terence Knox. Sgt. Clayton Ezekiel “Zeke” Anderson. That was a great f*cking show. That opening theme still gets free airtime in my head to this day lol.
The logistical tail required to get all those troops to the front. The amount of support and planning needed to get the gear, fuel, and trained troops to the right location is insane. What makes the US great isn’t our tech or the commitment of our troops. It’s the ability to get those things to a location and keeping them working in that location consistently.
You are right, of course. But I'm amazed you got away with saying it without a dozen people losing their minds about courage and fighting spirit and a bunch of other things that are great until you run out of water and bullets.
Reminded of the part of General Patton's 'Speech' where he makes not of the combat telephone linesman doing his job in the middle of fighting... _One of the bravest men I saw in the African campaign was on a telegraph pole in the midst of furious fire while we were moving toward Tunis. I stopped and asked him what the hell he was doing up there. He answered, 'Fixing the wire, sir.' 'Isn't it a little unhealthy up there right now?' I asked. 'Yes sir, but this goddamn wire has got to be fixed.' I asked, 'Don't those planes strafing the road bother you?' And he answered, 'No sir, but you sure as hell do.' Now, there was a real soldier. A real man. A man who devoted all he had to his duty, no matter how great the odds, no matter how seemingly insignificant his duty appeared at the time_
@@LucasSouza-ey7iv ~ Army has an in-house publication called 'P.S.' dedicated to preventative maintenance. Will Eisener drew 'Connie' the magazine's cartoon 'spokeslady'. The issue we have has a cartoon about that very principle...
As a Singaporean son, I've had the rare privilege to use a General Purpose Machine Gun, the SAR21 & even the SAW rifle.. All 3 are loud, but the GPMG is *the loudest* by far which is why we always had to have earplugs during outfield exercises..
@@paulbale1381 don't get me started on how long it normally took to clean the whole damn thing, even inside the fucking chamber.. URGHHHH!! Fortunately, my SAW IA'ed a lot so cleaning it was a shorter process
When I was in the navy, we had to use double ear pro when qualifying on the range. Admittedly we were firing shotguns and M16s as well as M9s, but yeah. That stuff is so loud.
At 0:33 ...It is definitely true that Artillery guns killed the majority of soldiers in the past...and even so more today...Smart bombs, Howitzers, UAVs...there is nearly no hand to hand combat...it is done from a distance...While in Balad, Iraq, I remember we were bombarded with mortar fire several times a day...
I was at Al Taqaddum Airport with a Cobra/Huey Marine Corps unit. 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. We had mortar and rocket attacks day and night randomly. It was more of a headache than anything really. I e hit the fuel dump on my first deployment. That went up
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.
One of the funniest cases of movies grabbing whatever tank was available was the movie Patton. Both factions used the M47/48, which is called.....The Patton
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.
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.
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.
@@CivilizedWarrior It had to do a lot with the nature of early photography. Given how long exposure times were, photographs worked best with subjects that didn't move. It's kind of creepy when you look at the photographs people took with dead relatives: the living people are slightly blurry because there's always that tiny bit of motions, but the dead are perfectly crystal clear because they didn't move at all.
Another common myth from war movies as well as action movies in general is the myth of what constitutes cover. You'll see the protagonist taking cover behind a couch or desk and they're fine. Or you might see a character safely taking cover inside of a woooden house. I have a couple of friends in Portland Oregon. They have a lovely home in what used to be a lovely neighborhood. Unfortunately things have gotten dicey over the last few years and one night there was a gun fight in the park across the street. It was short with only a few shots fired but still, scary. A few days later they were preparing to have a quest and went into the guest room. There was a hole in the wall by the bed. Upon further investigation the pillow on the bed also was damaged. When they looked further it turned out the hole came through the wall from the room on the other side and when they looked, there was a hole in the outside wall of that same room. A bullet from the gunfight had gone through the wooded wall on the outside of the house, then through the drywall of both bedrooms and finally stopped in the oposite wall. Had either of them been in those rooms...well, they didn't get much cover from the thin cladding on the outside of the house nor the drywall in the interior.
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.
Thanks for this video, Simon and crew. The comment section is giving you enough material for a part two, and even maybe a part three as well. Your point about hearing loss hits home. My right ear will never be the same again. Did you know the "hotline" between Washington and Moscow in the Cold War was a teleprinter, not a phone? Almost all the Politburo in the 60s were WW2 vets, and were hearing impaired.
@Alexandre-sz2jb Those words are meaningless to anyone not raised in your religion, not only that but it has nothing to do with this video. As for the quote "“I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.” - No, you witnessed nothing. You read a poorly written work of fiction. Then again it's no surprise someone foolish enough to believe in such fairy tales would think it's that easy to make someone as delusional as they are.
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.
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.
I've actually been wishing for some years that movies would make more "boring" gunfights. I see a lot of potential for tension in the silence between those bursts of fire
Yeah, gun fights with more misses (especially from protagonist), less full auto spraying and generally just having the protagonist not know everything about the enemy position could make some fights way cooler!
Tbh a more realistic gunfight would likely have psychological horror elements; both only have a few bullets (knowing that reloading is a risk) and are trying to ambush the other using cover/concealment - after all, it only takes one mistake or a split second of hesitation for the protagonist to get gunned down and every window, every gap between fence panels, every bush and every shadow holds the threat of violent death. The contrast between the silence/tinitus as both are positioning (building tension) and the explosive moments of action with deafening gunshots (jumpscares) would also prevent it from getting boring.
It's also worth mentioning those common scenes of soldiers/police with handguns hitting distant and moving targets. You'd have to be Buffalo Bill and Annie Oakley combined to make literally all those shots. The short barrels on handguns don't produce straight, level trajectories needed to make those shots and really no one has the skills to do so no matter how bad-ass they think themselves to be.
Short barrels produce straight trajectories just fine, you can be plenty accurate with them. The first problem is bullet drop is greatly exaggerated due to slow speed which means it falls further over distance. The second problem and is the main one is that it is generally much harder to hold the shorter barrel on target and the shooter pulls it off target usually into the dirt. Make no mistake though this is not the fault of the mechanical accuracy of the gun but the fault of the shooter. The short distance between front and rear sight also impacts accuracy as it magnifies shooter error greatly. I've managed to hit clays at 100m plinking in a quarry with a 3.25 in barrel .380 Auto, mind you it took me about a dozen tries the first time and I was aiming roughly six feet high and a few feet right.
Massad Ayoob wrote of a sheriff's deputy that had a documented hit on a running perp at 173 yards... With a .357 Magnum. He competed in long-range pistol matches and used what he knew to drop the criminal as he ran towards a house.
I think the most pervasive myth is that flamethrowers were really really easy to blow up, just one shot on the fuel tank and boom the solider is now a pillar of flame and his buddies are flying all over the place. Funnily enough it would be quite hard to get a man to wear a device that would explode at the drop of a hat. Whilst it is obviously possible to make a flame thrower explode it is not a simple case of shooting the tank.
Quite so. That isn't to say it was useless to do so: if a flamethrower operator's pressuriser ruptures, it'll probably knock him flat with the release of the highly-pressurised gas, and it'll make his flamethrower nearly useless (since its the pressurised gas that gives it its range). If his fuel tank is hit, the results are likely to be less dramatic, but he's likely to still be out of the fight: if your fuel tank is leaking highly-flammable chemicals down your back, you want to keep those chemicals well away from fires (such as those which might occur if you actually tried to fire your weapon).
You didnt need to shoot the tank, they were quite good at exploding on their own. Tha tank is squirting liquid, not gass and that's far more dangerous. Have you ever seen a lighter explode, or even burst into flames? Now picture a 5 gallon lighter on your back. It's not the ideal fashion accessory.
In the third episode of Band of Brothers, they come up against two Jagdpanthers. There were only about 5 on the entire western front in 1944. What are the odds?
The most glaring inaccuracy, IMO, is how machine guns and machine gun fire is used. There is a reason a machine gun nest has at least two machine guns and it is not for flanking fire. Pumping hundreds of explosions through a gun makes it very, very, very hot and if you do not allow the gun to cool down it will begin to melt, or rather, parts will melt and gun will break. One gunner fires a box of ammo and reloads while the other gun takes over. They also allow the gun to cool down for at least a minute before firing.
I love how after a huge firefight, they can literally whisper to each other minutes later when ambushing or assaulting a new position. The only movie that ever kind of touches on this is Black Hawk Down where one guy goes deaf. Between all the ear drum shattering explosions and gunfire, 90% of the movies lines should be "WHAT?".
Years ago, I spoke to a Marine veteran of World War II moments after watching "Saving Private Ryan." He was a veteran of several Pacific Theater invasions, and he dubbed the movie's mission to locate one soldier, a sole-surviving son or not, "ridiculous." He told me if for whatever reason a particular soldier had to be located, the Army would have put out general radio messages ordering Private Ryan, serial number such-and-such, to report to the rear. And a captain wouldn't have been assigned such a task. Given the situation in Normandy right after D-Day, the Army isn't going to waste an officer on such a mission, he told me.
Plus, there was no way General Marshall would have ordered such a mission. He would have seen that mission as wasteful of lives and resources and bad for morale, as well as politically divisive when word got out. Most likely he would have said a quick prayer for the last Ryan boy, then followed the course you outlined.
During WW2, my mother lost her father at Midway, and her brother at Pelilue. The government told her they were ordering her uncle home, since he was the last man in her family. He was killed before the order reached his unit.
Another thing that gets me in movies is fists fights where nobody has a bruise. Haymakers don’t knock people down. When guns are fired indoors, and the characters speak to each other after, like their ears wouldn’t be ringing. Movie violence makes violence look like it’s not so bad.
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.
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
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-?
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.
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.
@@DanDanDoeI 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
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.
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.
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.....' 🙂
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
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
Here's the scene episode Monkees in a Ghost Town (1x07).
th-cam.com/video/9wVVwJBStiE/w-d-xo.html
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
What?...WHAT?...
TWD zombies being a threat at all, imagine a zombie horde against a bradley, even a .50cal armed M113 would clean a street. The US army completely being deleted and groups of people surviving is dumb
@nahuelleandroarroyo I probably wouldn't want an M113, they're a little prone to breaking down
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.
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.*
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
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.
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.
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".
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.
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...
My grandfather, a French soldier, had been made prisoner by the Germans and sent to Stalag in Germany, then to work in farms in Poland. He was 'freed' by the Russians... They first sent him to the front to fight for them, then was sent to Siberia, in a gulag. He came back on his own, way after the war, to the surprise of everyone as he was reported as KIA. To his last day, he never talked about what happened in Russia, but years after the war, a Russian dignitary came over during a visit in France (northern France was quite communist at the time). He apparently did ask around if my grandfather had talked about his time in Siberia.
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)
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?
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
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.
@@sanctuaryforthelostYou would usually use subsonic rounds with a suppressed firearm. But it's still going to make a surprisingly loud noise.
@@DeepCFisherwho told mags are disposable? Typically, an infantry soldier would carry 8 mags, so when he’s “ disposed” all 8 mags, what does he use? The last thing you do is ditch your mags, you recharge them whenever you can.
@@sanctuaryforthelost Nagant M1895.
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)
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.
That's why the 1973 British series The World at War featuring the narration by Laurence Olivier is good. It covers everything about WW II.
A fantastic series
One of the single best series ever released. First watched parts of it during history lessons at high school. Recently watched the entire thing again on TH-cam. Brilliant!
..and thank you! I know this sounds remarkably stupid but I hadn't realised it was Lawrence Olivier narrating! Knew the voice (and what a voice it was!) but never put 2&2 together...or paid attention to the credits apparently 😅
The best WW2 documentary shows losses on both sides history finally shown neutrally
That was great but ww2 week by week with Indy niedell is by far the best I’ve seen and is on going.
The "Final Solution" and "Japanese POW" episodes should be compulsory viewing for every school child in the world.
We would here a lot less complaints about the bombing campaign in Europe and the atom bombs in Japan if people knew what the Germans and Japanese were doing.
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
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.
@@221b-l3t 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.
@@221b-l3t 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.
@@221b-l3t I have subsonic rounds for my 22LR weapons
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.
@@PilatusTurbo Thank you for the kind words, friend. Semper Fi.
@@PilatusTurbo 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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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
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.😵💫😵💫😵💫
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.
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.
for real, Arty teams NEVER get the credit they deserve! most people likely don't realize the amount of teamwork required, and strength involved.....105mm be heavy LOL
There is a ww1 movie my history teacher put on for us once it was the pinnacle of realism the entire hour is spent waiting for an attack by the Germans on the British trenches apart from the mission to kidnap a German soldier halfway through nothing happens there is about 40 gunshots in the entire movie mostly from a machine gun during the mission when the final battle arrives everyone readies themselves only for every character to be killed by arty the final scene informs us over footage of German soldiers walking around the destroyed line that the area was recaptured by the British about a week later
@@maxparkhouse6850whats the movie called?
@@alexanderjuarez1713 i forgot it but search the concept
Most war movies -- like most "action" movies -- portray dramatic battles between "good guys" and "bad guys" but, at least since the First World War, most of the wartime killing has been impersonal. Artillery crews, bomber crews, submarine crew typically don't even see the people who they kill. That doesn't fit the typical narrative structure of the movie, so it's de-emphasized.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
the military addressed this problem already because of units expending too many rounds too fast. in war things escalate really fast, the anxiety response means you have to fight the flight or fight response, the physical result is your hands start to shake, your breathing increases, you start sweating and your ability to do simple tasks takes longer it feels like your trying to run but everywhere is filled with water and things slow down. this also effects accuracy and situational awareness and counting the rounds in your rifle. so the solution is a selector switch that changes fire settings from single shot, burst, full auto. another solution is called tactical breathing, inhale long and slow for 5 seconds, hold 5 seconds, release 5 seconds do 5 reps. always do a full body scan starting at your toes and working to the top of your head to ground yourself this fights the amygdala hijack response. if you are going into a situation where the stress is going to be high start your breathing before the onset of the amygdala hijack and breath before, during, and after the high stress situation. if you start to freeze focus on a small task then snow ball that into a more complex task and break the freeze/fight/flight response.
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
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 😂😂
My take as an ex Infantry soldier.
1. Weapons always work and ammo never runs out. No
2. Your leaders make good decisions often. Sometimes
3. Sergeants are wiser and more experienced than officers (sometimes true however)
4. It’s all merit based. No
5. Grenades. Far more louder and dangerous than in movies.
6. Soldiers have a green light to intimidate, harm, or even sexually assault people at will. (extreme punishments for that stuff in the military)
7. Everyone is a combat soldier. Most modern, western armies need about 15 non combat soldiers to have a single combat arms soldier.
8. A tank, jet, missile, something will always come in and help when needed. Will never happen. You go in with whatever support you have.
9. Soldiers have a say and everyone knows what’s going on. Truth is few soldiers have a voice and even fewer know what’s going on at all. Most are completely blind to any objective.
10. Fighting is large scale. Rarely is modern warfare conducted at large scale. Small groups of soldiers are usually operating in small elements and attacking small objectives.
11. If hungry simply take some local persons livestock. That’s a warfare violation and you eat the shit they give you.
12. Soldiers spend downtime getting drunk in a tent and talking shit to each other. No, soldiers sit on cots and are constantly given bullsh😢it details and it’s like taking your boss home with you.
And one more…..
Helicopters. Comfortable, safe, stable, and if you wanna talk simply raise your voice a little bit. Truth: They are cramped, painful, very dangerous, and are deafening. We used hand signals only in helicopters. Blackhawk’s were better but still bad. Huey’s, OMG, you can’t hear yourself think.
Also - there is never a plan (or series of plans), everyone makes it up as they go along. (Especially aviators flying through an artillery barrage.)
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!
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.
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 :)
Simon consistently delivers compelling content targeted towards intellectual viewers.
Your efforts are appreciated
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.
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.
As combat infantryman in Vietnam I tossed my fair share of grenades. Unlike the movies they do explode but not in great balls of fire (what you see is dirt and dust and shrapnel expanded around the blast.)
I have ZERO combat experience , but a friend is a surgeon at a VA hospital. Through him I learned a fair amount . When he asked the vets that wanted to talk what the movies can't get across , almost all of them said it was the smells . They said no matter how brave a soldier is , in serious fights people crap and wet themselves involuntarily . Just a biological reaction. And the other was what can best be described as "industrial" smells . Metal on metal, burning fuels , rubber , different propellants from various munitions . I think the truest words I have ever spoken are "I can't imagine what that's like" . Can't even pretend to .
One thing that gets left out is that muscles relax on death - someone who's just died will void their bowels and bladder. That rank cesspit smell as well as the smell of burning blood (especially blood burning on heated metal) are two smells you really don't ever forget. I got plenty of both when I worked volunteer search and rescue for a number of years, and helped locate a pair of small aircraft that had gone down in the mountains over that time. It's been almost 20 years and I can still remember both of those smells vividly.
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.
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
As someone who has served before. Thank you for doing all is a service and explaining what things can really be like for those on the battle field. It is really nice to watch a video where the military is not crapped on from a political standpoint and to simply have some highly accurate explanations of what we have gone through.
I don't crap on veterans. I crap I the bloodthirsty cosplayers that send my fellow citizens to go and die or get traumatized, but who never have to go to war and whose children never go to war.
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.
Interestingly, Dunkirk tends to do a pretty decent job at portraying the Spitfire's ammo capacity, showing 2 seconds bursts and generally keeping to around 7-9 bursts per plane. This lines up with both the pilot's training and the Spitfire's (Mk. 1) ammo capacity of 2800 rounds (350 rpg) and a sustained fire rate of 1150 rpm. (Although I do certainly agree that most movies are rather … relaxed when it comes to ammo capacity on aircraft.)
And constantly worrying about your supply of gas....or petrol as they say in Old Blighty.
Ruins it when he carries on fighting even when the engine has stopped tho !
@andym9571 I think it was actually done in the war though. Probably not so intentionally, but I'm sure somebody ran out of fuel somewhere and got a lucky stealth kill on a passing enemy as they were preparing for a soft landing or bail-out.
Was going to say this. Dunkirk was done quite well
I was going to ask why they showed Dunkirk whilst talking about this myth as if Dunkirk did it wrong,
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
@@Rubelessit 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.😊
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.
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.
P😊
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.
lol so I listened again and I know you meant 87% suffered hearing impairment but the percent didn’t make it into the dialogue. So it became the number 87. I bet the VA agrees with you based on how much they love saying “your injuries aren’t service related” lol. Love the video Simon good work as always.
There's a LOT of stuff in the military that's loud besides weapons. The M-35 Deuce and a half was a turbo charged diesel with straight pipes. Loud AF.
Another common mistake in films that deal with 19th century and earlier artillery is the complete lack of recoil when firing. Years ago, I was aboard the Susan Constant out of Jamestowne on a trip up the Chesapeake. We were out in the middle of the Bay and decided to do some live firing exercises with the ship's cannons which are falcons (roughly 3 pound balls) if I recall correctly. The gunner decided to see what would happen if we fired the gun without the breech rope. We loaded a charge 1/3rd the normal size and stood well back. When fired, the gun recoiled across the deck until it hit the coaming surrounding the main hatch. Had it been a full charge, the cannon would undoubtedly have ended up in the hold. I have also live fired muzzle loading field artillery, and the recoil is equally great. And of course there are the explosions when the shot being fired is a solid ball with no explosive charge whatsoever.
I enjoyed this very much, but feel constrained to point out that it's spelled 'casualties', not 'cassualties'. Sorry, can't help myself. ;
I was at a military show where a smokeless powder 57mm artillery blank with only half a charge was fired.
Man, even that had quite the shock and noise.
Set off peoples car alarms.
I spoke to somebody who lived in the neighborhood years later. He said stuff would get knocked off of his shelves in the house from it.
and you just answered your own mistake critique; if they used real ammo and full charges people would get hurt making the movies. It is amazing to me people don't get this.
No offense, but moviemakers do far more dangerous things with and without explosives all the time. Avoiding injury is a matter of taking safety very seriously whenever you're dealing with firearms, cannons, explosives et hoc genus omne. Nor is it necessary to fire live ammo or use a full charge to simulate recoil. Particularly with the advances in CGI.@@RTStx1
Like a loose cannon...
True and the reason the Term loose cannon was created; Can you image a 24 pounder fire and run across the guns deck;
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.
The clicky-clicky noises that every firearm makes whenever they get pointed at anything, the constant racking of weapons (especially when it's a pump shotgun and you can literally see the live shell getting ejected that nobody in the continuity department seemed to notice), and especially the sparking of bullets from everything that they hit. Those are usually the trifecta of bullshit action movies that tell me it's likely directed by someone who doesn't care enough to pay attention to details and I should take it seriously. Which is fine with your typical popcorn summer action flicks, but which really grinds my goat when it comes to a supposedly "historical" movie.
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.
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.
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
On range with army reserves I moved early defense to listen to range conducting officer only to not put them back properly when I fired weapon
When I was going through basic training we fired the 3.5 inch rocket launcher (a bigger bazooka) and the LAAW (Light Anti Armor Weapon.) The rocket launcher was very loud but most of the noise was behind us. The LAAW was a thin aluminum tube...and it was enormously louder...and right by your ear. That was in the summer of 1969. My ears started ringing then...and they still do today. Permanent tinnitus. They didn't pass out earplugs then. I heard a lot louder in Vietnam. I agree...the noise of battle is overwhelming. And even if you don't get hit you can feel the shock wave of a rocket or artillery hit from yards away.
The "infinite ammo" thing bugs the hell out of me ALL the time.
As does the bad guys being unbelievably bad shots, even with machine guns, while the good guys have unfailing aim.
This is a western TV show but chuck Conners shoots a 1890's Winchester 44-40 rifle 13 times in the opening credits from a rifle that holds 11 rounds
The sniper in Saving Private Ryan who fires eight rounds without reloading from a Springfield M1903A4 🤦♂️
Right at midnight in my country. You destroy my sleep cause I can't sleep without watching a few of your videos. Your voice has become a midnight addiction. Still love you Simon you are awesome.
I've watched a couple of Vietnam movies with my dad who served two tours in Vietnam. He's giving me knowledge on what was factual and what was pure Hollywood.
How did he like thin red line?
@@van3158its a great Bar!
I saw The Green Berets and thought it was almost a comedy. The level of accuracy is exemplified by the last scene, which has the sun setting in the east.
@@MegaFortinbras it's the mirror universe 🤣
@@MegaFortinbrasit’s a John Wayne propaganda film, what were you expecting?
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
@@Rubeless 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.
And that guy iirc correctly Bob, said, "Play anything just play it LOUD okay."
There was one in the series about the Vietnam war called Tour of Duty. The actor who played the sergeant said that a veteran told him: you are walking too close to each other! In Vietnam we walked far apart for safety. To which the actor replied: we know that, but then everybody will not fit on the screen!
Speaking of Vietnam, my favorite Vietnam movie is apocalypse now, because of how accurately they depict the true nature of the war. The napalm strikes so close you could smell them, and the civilians evacuating next to said napalm. The random concert they come across in the middle of the jungle, the camp where the commanding officer got killed by a mine and order has broken down, the last base they come across which is just constantly under siege. The rogue soldier leading a cult in Cambodia. Utter madness and I love it for that
Speaking of which, and on the artillery issue, there is the pilot episode where Lt. Goldman is trying to rally the platoon to charge the treeline they're taking rifle fire from and Sgt Anderson pulls him down so they can call their big friend, artillery, to deal with the issue.
@@kemarisite
The sergeant lovingly calls them Artie.
Terence Knox. Sgt. Clayton Ezekiel “Zeke” Anderson. That was a great f*cking show. That opening theme still gets free airtime in my head to this day lol.
@@kemarisite “another f*cking butter bar!”
The logistical tail required to get all those troops to the front. The amount of support and planning needed to get the gear, fuel, and trained troops to the right location is insane. What makes the US great isn’t our tech or the commitment of our troops. It’s the ability to get those things to a location and keeping them working in that location consistently.
You are right, of course. But I'm amazed you got away with saying it without a dozen people losing their minds about courage and fighting spirit and a bunch of other things that are great until you run out of water and bullets.
Reminded of the part of General Patton's 'Speech' where he makes not of the combat telephone linesman doing his job in the middle of fighting...
_One of the bravest men I saw in the African campaign was on a telegraph pole in the midst of furious fire while we were moving toward Tunis. I stopped and asked him what the hell he was doing up there. He answered, 'Fixing the wire, sir.' 'Isn't it a little unhealthy up there right now?' I asked. 'Yes sir, but this goddamn wire has got to be fixed.' I asked, 'Don't those planes strafing the road bother you?' And he answered, 'No sir, but you sure as hell do.' Now, there was a real soldier. A real man. A man who devoted all he had to his duty, no matter how great the odds, no matter how seemingly insignificant his duty appeared at the time_
Logistics are the core of an army, it does not matter if you outnumber your enemy 5:1 if you cant fight him
@@chezsnailezMy grandfather was a lineman with the 101st Airborne in WWII. The stories he told were insane.
@@LucasSouza-ey7iv ~ Army has an in-house publication called 'P.S.' dedicated to preventative maintenance. Will Eisener drew 'Connie' the magazine's cartoon 'spokeslady'.
The issue we have has a cartoon about that very principle...
As a Singaporean son, I've had the rare privilege to use a General Purpose Machine Gun, the SAR21 & even the SAW rifle.. All 3 are loud, but the GPMG is *the loudest* by far which is why we always had to have earplugs during outfield exercises..
Haha yeh the gimpy is an awesome weapon. I loved using it when I was in the mob. A bastard when you're volunteered as the gunner on tour 🤣
@@paulbale1381 don't get me started on how long it normally took to clean the whole damn thing, even inside the fucking chamber.. URGHHHH!! Fortunately, my SAW IA'ed a lot so cleaning it was a shorter process
When I was in the navy, we had to use double ear pro when qualifying on the range. Admittedly we were firing shotguns and M16s as well as M9s, but yeah. That stuff is so loud.
The GPMG, or the M240 in US service, is so loud that you can FEEL it in your chest when it’s fired. It’s a heavy beast as well
@@coryhall7074 ifkr!!
At 0:33 ...It is definitely true that Artillery guns killed the majority of soldiers in the past...and even so more today...Smart bombs, Howitzers, UAVs...there is nearly no hand to hand combat...it is done from a distance...While in Balad, Iraq, I remember we were bombarded with mortar fire several times a day...
I was at Al Taqaddum Airport with a Cobra/Huey Marine Corps unit. 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. We had mortar and rocket attacks day and night randomly. It was more of a headache than anything really. I e hit the fuel dump on my first deployment. That went up
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.
One of the funniest cases of movies grabbing whatever tank was available was the movie Patton. Both factions used the M47/48, which is called.....The Patton
Reminds me of the "Migs" in Top Gin
I recall they used the M-24 Chaffee to represent Shermans and had the M-47 to represent King Tigers.
@@jaggedskar3890 You're prolly right. it's been awhile since I've seen it
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.
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.
@@CivilizedWarrior It had to do a lot with the nature of early photography. Given how long exposure times were, photographs worked best with subjects that didn't move. It's kind of creepy when you look at the photographs people took with dead relatives: the living people are slightly blurry because there's always that tiny bit of motions, but the dead are perfectly crystal clear because they didn't move at all.
Did you mean concussion? The same thing can happen with aerial bombs.
Another common myth from war movies as well as action movies in general is the myth of what constitutes cover. You'll see the protagonist taking cover behind a couch or desk and they're fine. Or you might see a character safely taking cover inside of a woooden house. I have a couple of friends in Portland Oregon. They have a lovely home in what used to be a lovely neighborhood. Unfortunately things have gotten dicey over the last few years and one night there was a gun fight in the park across the street. It was short with only a few shots fired but still, scary. A few days later they were preparing to have a quest and went into the guest room. There was a hole in the wall by the bed. Upon further investigation the pillow on the bed also was damaged. When they looked further it turned out the hole came through the wall from the room on the other side and when they looked, there was a hole in the outside wall of that same room. A bullet from the gunfight had gone through the wooded wall on the outside of the house, then through the drywall of both bedrooms and finally stopped in the oposite wall. Had either of them been in those rooms...well, they didn't get much cover from the thin cladding on the outside of the house nor the drywall in the interior.
soooo many bulletproof couches in movies lol
@@ralang999 Mass Effect couches save from helicopter's missiles! Then again, Garrus survives one to the face. Turians are tough.
Im lucky my house is made of bricks and not cheap drywall then
@@Dwight_ I thought the same thing when they told me about it. I will say the Three Little Pigs came to mind.
@@ralang999 Thing is, it wouldn't be that hard to *make* a bullet-resistant couch, just put a heavy steel plate in the back.
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.
Thanks for this video, Simon and crew. The comment section is giving you enough material for a part two, and even maybe a part three as well. Your point about hearing loss hits home. My right ear will never be the same again. Did you know the "hotline" between Washington and Moscow in the Cold War was a teleprinter, not a phone? Almost all the Politburo in the 60s were WW2 vets, and were hearing impaired.
@Alexandre-sz2jb Those words are meaningless to anyone not raised in your religion, not only that but it has nothing to do with this video. As for the quote "“I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.” - No, you witnessed nothing. You read a poorly written work of fiction. Then again it's no surprise someone foolish enough to believe in such fairy tales would think it's that easy to make someone as delusional as they are.
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.
I've actually been wishing for some years that movies would make more "boring" gunfights. I see a lot of potential for tension in the silence between those bursts of fire
Yeah, gun fights with more misses (especially from protagonist), less full auto spraying and generally just having the protagonist not know everything about the enemy position could make some fights way cooler!
Tbh a more realistic gunfight would likely have psychological horror elements; both only have a few bullets (knowing that reloading is a risk) and are trying to ambush the other using cover/concealment - after all, it only takes one mistake or a split second of hesitation for the protagonist to get gunned down and every window, every gap between fence panels, every bush and every shadow holds the threat of violent death. The contrast between the silence/tinitus as both are positioning (building tension) and the explosive moments of action with deafening gunshots (jumpscares) would also prevent it from getting boring.
@@Neion8 - So they should play Tarkov for a while. :D
The movie Heat did this well
Half the film with the protagonist shitting himself in a bush as a geared up 4 man goes past... not sure it would work! @@tearstoneactual9773
It's also worth mentioning those common scenes of soldiers/police with handguns hitting distant and moving targets. You'd have to be Buffalo Bill and Annie Oakley combined to make literally all those shots. The short barrels on handguns don't produce straight, level trajectories needed to make those shots and really no one has the skills to do so no matter how bad-ass they think themselves to be.
Short barrels produce straight trajectories just fine, you can be plenty accurate with them. The first problem is bullet drop is greatly exaggerated due to slow speed which means it falls further over distance. The second problem and is the main one is that it is generally much harder to hold the shorter barrel on target and the shooter pulls it off target usually into the dirt. Make no mistake though this is not the fault of the mechanical accuracy of the gun but the fault of the shooter. The short distance between front and rear sight also impacts accuracy as it magnifies shooter error greatly.
I've managed to hit clays at 100m plinking in a quarry with a 3.25 in barrel .380 Auto, mind you it took me about a dozen tries the first time and I was aiming roughly six feet high and a few feet right.
Massad Ayoob wrote of a sheriff's deputy that had a documented hit on a running perp at 173 yards...
With a .357 Magnum. He competed in long-range pistol matches and used what he knew to drop the criminal as he ran towards a house.
I saw Buffalo Bill and Annie Oakley combined, once. Worst transporter accident of my life.
@@Nupetiet My Grandfather saw both back at the turn of the twentieth century performing in Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show.
@@johngregory4801 He must be SUPERMAN!
I think the most pervasive myth is that flamethrowers were really really easy to blow up, just one shot on the fuel tank and boom the solider is now a pillar of flame and his buddies are flying all over the place. Funnily enough it would be quite hard to get a man to wear a device that would explode at the drop of a hat. Whilst it is obviously possible to make a flame thrower explode it is not a simple case of shooting the tank.
Well, they did get pilots to fly the Me-163 Komet....
Quite so. That isn't to say it was useless to do so: if a flamethrower operator's pressuriser ruptures, it'll probably knock him flat with the release of the highly-pressurised gas, and it'll make his flamethrower nearly useless (since its the pressurised gas that gives it its range). If his fuel tank is hit, the results are likely to be less dramatic, but he's likely to still be out of the fight: if your fuel tank is leaking highly-flammable chemicals down your back, you want to keep those chemicals well away from fires (such as those which might occur if you actually tried to fire your weapon).
The fuel tanks aren't the problem, it is the pressurized propellant gas tank that you don't want failing.
Few different versions of flame throwers used.. 1st version had weak gassing systems
You didnt need to shoot the tank, they were quite good at exploding on their own.
Tha tank is squirting liquid, not gass and that's far more dangerous.
Have you ever seen a lighter explode, or even burst into flames?
Now picture a 5 gallon lighter on your back. It's not the ideal fashion accessory.
In the third episode of Band of Brothers, they come up against two Jagdpanthers. There were only about 5 on the entire western front in 1944. What are the odds?
The most glaring inaccuracy, IMO, is how machine guns and machine gun fire is used. There is a reason a machine gun nest has at least two machine guns and it is not for flanking fire. Pumping hundreds of explosions through a gun makes it very, very, very hot and if you do not allow the gun to cool down it will begin to melt, or rather, parts will melt and gun will break. One gunner fires a box of ammo and reloads while the other gun takes over. They also allow the gun to cool down for at least a minute before firing.
@tedwojtasik8781 That, or they could switch the gun's barrel during the reload. That is what the Germans did with the Maschinengewehr 42.
@@Matthew-Anthony True, but you still need that second gunner as changing barrels takes time and can be very difficult while being shot at.
I love how after a huge firefight, they can literally whisper to each other minutes later when ambushing or assaulting a new position. The only movie that ever kind of touches on this is Black Hawk Down where one guy goes deaf. Between all the ear drum shattering explosions and gunfire, 90% of the movies lines should be "WHAT?".
Years ago, I spoke to a Marine veteran of World War II moments after watching "Saving Private Ryan." He was a veteran of several Pacific Theater invasions, and he dubbed the movie's mission to locate one soldier, a sole-surviving son or not, "ridiculous." He told me if for whatever reason a particular soldier had to be located, the Army would have put out general radio messages ordering Private Ryan, serial number such-and-such, to report to the rear. And a captain wouldn't have been assigned such a task. Given the situation in Normandy right after D-Day, the Army isn't going to waste an officer on such a mission, he told me.
Plus, there was no way General Marshall would have ordered such a mission. He would have seen that mission as wasteful of lives and resources and bad for morale, as well as politically divisive when word got out. Most likely he would have said a quick prayer for the last Ryan boy, then followed the course you outlined.
During WW2, my mother lost her father at Midway, and her brother at Pelilue.
The government told her they were ordering her uncle home, since he was the last man in her family.
He was killed before the order reached his unit.
@@patrickkenyon2326 Wow. Is that really true? OMG. God bless her heart. Humans are cruel beings. My condolences.
@@feynmanschwingere_mc2270 She was orphaned at 16 years old, when her mother was killed in a fire at a ammunition factory.
It was 1944.
Yeah but that wouldn't make for a film that makes everyone think Tom Hanks single handedly won the 2nd World War
Another thing that gets me in movies is fists fights where nobody has a bruise.
Haymakers don’t knock people down.
When guns are fired indoors, and the characters speak to each other after, like their ears wouldn’t be ringing.
Movie violence makes violence look like it’s not so bad.