KLEINIGKEITEN: Anachronisms in Cultural Depictions of World War II

[@redwolf4203]

It is a curse. The more you're interested in something the more likely you won't enjoy a movie about it.

[@thekuan7002]

This is what my friend's who went to film school go through. Instead of enjoying the movie they're always analyzing the lighting or the angle of the shot. haha huhuhuhu

[@Rabhadh]

I haven't enjoyed a medieval set game or movie in about a decade!

[@tannerosborn2666]

your profile picture looks like a shrimp : - )

[@jonathanallard2128]

I know exactly what you're talking about. The same happened to me with music. I used to like just about every song of any genre. Then the moment I started learning guitar and song writing I started enjoying less and less genres and songs.

[@skepticmonkey6923]

@@jonathanallard2128 Nah, that's crap, maybe you got more picky with your songs, i understand. But what kind of musician dismisses entire genres? If anything learning music theory should open you up to more music, not make you close minded, i have not in my life met musicians who the more they knew about music the less music they listened too. Did you just learn to play in one style and now you think you know everything? Because you don't.

[@superfish0012]

For fuck's sake, now I'm always going to notice the weapon carrying.

[@HandGrenadeDivision]

I usually delete comments with profanity in them, but in this case, it is probably warranted. Also, you're welcome. :-)

[@dermotrooney9584]

Me too. Problem is now I'm an old fart with a .303 but I can't help carrying it like it's a 5.56.

[@imagismus]

Same here honestly...

[@TFairy-bp5te]

haha, I was thinking the same thing, I'm a big aviation history nerd so I spot "well, that's really not the right model of P-40 for that time period" type things but now I'm going to be watching the infantry stuff which I previously would have been oblivious to....

[@anthonyhayes1267]

@@TFairy-bp5te On that note, I would kill to see an actual early war P-40 in a film just once

[@Riceball01]

Another anachronism, from what I'm told is the practice of indexing your trigger finger next to the trigger and trigger guard. In the present, in both the civilian world as well as in the military, we are told to keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you're ready to fire. Apparently, this form of trigger discipline wasn't taught back in the '40s during WWII and earlier. At most, soldiers back then would have their trigger finger wrapped around the stock, if it wasn't around or on the trigger, but not outside of the trigger guard and pointing down the length of the rifle as we do now.

[@AfrikaKorp42]

People used to draw handguns *by* the trigger that's why double action revolvers and heavy trigger pulls were common in late 19th-early 20th century armies

[@IPMOSharp]

This is a great observation. You can even see how keeping the finger in the trigger guard was commonly accepted by the location of the safety switches on some semi-automatic rifles of the time period. The M1 Garand has the switch sliding through the front of the trigger guard. On safe, it protrudes into the trigger guard, leaving just enough room for a finger to rest on the trigger. Pushing the finger forward on the safety moves it out of the trigger guard and makes the rifle ready to fire.

[@AfrikaKorp42]

Another example is the Roth-Steyr M07 pistol, Austrian High Command were concerned about cavalrymen drawing an automatic pistol by the trigger as they had done with the Gasser revolvers and so asked ŒWG to make the pistol's trigger similar to that of the Gasser M70, thus why the firing pin travels further back when the trigger is pulled, mimicking a double-action revolver trigger

[@blah007001]

Makes sense, the firearms safety rules as we know them today, (finger off trigger, muzzle only pointed at what you want to kill, awareness of what is behind target, etc...) were created by Jeff Cooper in the late-70's early-80's.

[@ravenknight4876]

Makes sense. Modern combat is just extremely fast paced in general

[@MichaelCorryFilms]

The carry positions usually bothers me in recent ww1 and ww2 movies. Something funny I noticed though when I watched 1917. It starts out with them two main characters carrying their rifles the wrong way (which annoyed the hell out of me) but as the movie went on they start carrying them properly. I doubt someone said anything so my guess is that as time went on with multiple, continuous takes, carrying a 9 pound rifle in the high or low ready was abandoned naturally by the actors. By the end of the film the ergonomics and weight of the rifle made them correct themselves.

[@himcfly4339]

considering that movies are not usually shot in order (spoiler alert, 1917 was not actually filmed in 1 take) that may have actually been the filmmakers telling the actors to slowly move the rifle into a "less ready" position for realism

[@morskojvolk]

Older war movies usually depicted weapon carriage properly (mostly pre-1980).

[@edevans2860]

I understand the actor James Coburn was told by a director how to hold his rifle during some 1960's war film, he then explained, in clear terms, how he had been a Marine during WW2 and therefore know more about how to hold a rifle than the director ever would!

[@sjoormen1]

Most of actors had experiences in ww2, one way or another, lots of films had real heroes acting in them. Great generation.

[@jed-henrywitkowski6470]

@@edevans2860 As a combo jab/trivia comment I told my brother, a Marine NCO, that the man who played Patton, in Patton, was actually a Marine during World War Two. He replied, by saying something to the effect that being the realism that veterans bring to military themed movies, can not be replicated, it can come close though. And that turned into a conversation between myself, him and our other brother about actors who served.

[@whisperchainsaw102]

thats because the common style was closer to the wwii style then. The modern tactical revolution also had a big effect on weapon handling.

[@HandGrenadeDivision]

@@edevans2860 The story you are thinking of concerned Lee Marvin. It was on the set of The Dirty Dozen. The weapons master for the set tried to show him basic drills for the M3 submachine gun, Marvin reportedly took it from his hands, field-stripped it, reassembled it, and handed it back. He had indeed been a combat infantryman in the US Marines, and had been wounded by enemy fire on Saipan. There was a good article with that weapons master in Military Illustrated a couple decades back. He also talked about other famous actors and without naming names mentioned one on the set of A Bridge Too Far (who never served in the military) who refused to get his hair cut in period style and asked for a balsa-wood pistol for his holster because the real thing was too heavy.

[@steelrain5706]

If you think this is historically inaccurate, l used to belong to an English civil war society, and some of the guys carried their 17th century matchlocks in the modern style, and the sound of 17th century soldiers screaming 'Medic!!' was jarring....Peace..

[@theangrycheeto]

CONTACT! CONTACT! RAMIREZ, GET ON THAT TURRET!

[@jakedee4117]

Apothecary ! Apothecary ! By the love of sweet Jesu, bring forth thine apothecary 'ere I die !

[@steelrain5706]

Jake Dee , lol, nice one...

[@steelrain5706]

David Vazquez , 👏👏👏

[@Bluehawk2008]

In lieu of a skilled surgeon, the local village barber would often suffice.

[@MRrealmadridRaul]

Please do a part 2. I never thought that the soldiers of WW2 would have carried their weapons any different than modern day so this is really eye opening to me. I'm sure there are plenty of other things that are very minor that I think are normal but someone like you can point out as being unauthentic. Great video.

[@lologunbl4]

Yep, especially will nice to see part about pistols

[@evanator166]

One very popular misconception for those that have not served in the military or have studied unit structure is that every squad had a medic. This is not the case then or now. The company aid men more commonly called medics were a company level asset that were divided one each between the platoons of the company.

[@jonathantan2469]

A lot of things have changed in between WW2 and today.

[@ASOIAF-Henrik]

To the last point: I listened to an interview with a former German soldier during WW2 and he also talked about making prisoners. It all seemed quite "casual" Once they took their weapons they also told the captured American soldiers that they dont need to put their hands up at all. Then they even traded/gifted each other cigarettes.

[@jangelnar5624]

Frixinator Well it truly depends on the circumstances. On the other hand, sometimes the prisoners had to take off their shoes so that they wouldn’t try to escape.

[@ASOIAF-Henrik]

@@jangelnar5624 Fair enough

[@konradvonschnitzeldorf6506]

I think it was a bit more heated on the Eastern Front

[@Spider-Too-Too]

you can see that in thr documentsry "they shall not grow old" as well

[@daonlyowner6631]

@@Spider-Too-Too that was WW1 tho

[@Paul-eh7wb]

I never noticed the weapon-carrying styles of soldiers in the films until now!

[@franciszeklatinik889]

same here

[@williamt.sherman9841]

most films don't show modern style at least not often.

[@Spider-Too-Too]

you prob can feel weird when seeing a ww2 soldier handle their rilfes like a m16

[@oneidea1121]

the game red orchestra 2 does it right

[@Spider-Too-Too]

@@oneidea1121 it's just a way for players to tell the friends from the foe. but it did bring my attention to how soldiers carry their rilfe in the old days. and during vietnam. the entire eastern bloc + asian commie pack soldiers run holding their rilfe in the center. hey, you can run a lot faster that way and its easier to get down into prone when you grab your rilfe in the center.

[@Sean-zf7il]

Just one note about the Thompson: the thing weighed an absolute ton. Fully loaded it was 13 pounds, a full 3 pounds heavier than the already hefty Garand, and just shy of twice the weight of the Sten. While I agree with your assessment that the M1 Carbine, MP40, and Sten were light enough to be carried one handed comfortably I don't think that extends to the Thompson. If you look at shots of soldiers carrying the Thompson it is either A. Being carried tucked under the shoulder to offset some of its heavy weight, a position just as common among soldiers with rifles, or B. Being carried two handed. You very rarely see the loose one handed carries you see with carbines and the 9mm SMGs.

[@HandGrenadeDivision]

The research department must have gotten on a roll when they started listing "light" weapons and added the Thompson without due consideration. I appreciate the comment. Disciplinary proceedings have begun. I believe your comments are correct and the video is in error, which I regret.

[@drs-Rigo-Reus]

Out of curiosity I picked one up at a gun auction, I used to carry all sorts including the FN FAL, but I thought what a heavy mf monster and instantly disliked it.....

[@voiceofraisin3778]

@@drs-Rigo-Reus If you want a good laugh read 'Quartered safe out here' by George McDonald Frazer, its reckoned as one of the best ground level books about WW2 anyway. He got issued one for his squad and generally reckoned it was inaccurate, weighed more than an anvil and rusted at the slightest provocation in the jungle, as soon as they captured some INA soldiers (Indian POWs who had defected to the Japanese side) who were still carrying their Lee-Enfields he pinched one of those and threw the Thompson in a river.

[@SlavicCelery]

@@drs-Rigo-Reus The FN FAL is a dog. It gets a whole lot of love because "DURR ARM OF THE FREE WORLD!". It's fine and dandy, but good lord it is not light at all. People pretend like it was SO much more superior to the M14. Yeah it's better, but they're all battle rifles and niche in nature now.

[@tubeguy4066]

lol 15lb dumbbell ain't nothing. I could carry it one handed

[@leoa4c]

Another great video! I wasn't consciously aware of this Hollywood discrepancy. However, while watching movies I always felt that the weapons' handling was too "professional", as both during the 1st and 2nd world war, soldiers tended to be or appear to be more "sloppy" with them, relative to present times. In a lot of movies, I now realize that squads have a tendency to move and pose like current U.S. Army or Marine squads. This video shines a light on why I had such feelings, even if I wasn't necessarily conscious about them. Thank you very, very much. Its always good to learn.

[@Spider-Too-Too]

yeah. exactly how i feel about some movie

[@leoa4c]

Another factor probably was the time restrictions. WWII was war on a massive scale. Countries had to suddenly mobilize hundreds of thousands of soldiers, whom they needed “yesterday”. Thus, not enough time for complete, extensive training. The same would be true today if a global war were to break out. Elite troops, on the other hand, will always be well trained, well fed, well supplied. That is why, by definition, they are elite troops.

[@Spider-Too-Too]

@@leoa4c i think we rrslly need you to givr an example on what kind of weapon handling are considered as sloppy and profesional. like pointing weapon in a friendlys face?

[@ant7936]

One could say a lot about "Hollywood discrepancies"! 😂

[@HandGrenadeDivision]

Basic training in the German Army dropped from 16 weeks at the onset of war, to less than 8 by 1944. By the same token, I suspect the majority of the subjects taught were weapons handling and fieldcraft. I am led to believe stuff like close order drill and bayonet fighting was all but abandoned. Also worth noting that all the major combatants drafted men for service. Some like Canada in small numbers, others like Germany had a long-standing tradition of universal service. Even the Waffen-SS was using conscription toward the end of the war (most famous SS conscript was probably Günter Grass).

[@unreasonable3589]

Late comment, since I have only just found these excellent videos. As an infantryman in the British Army in the early 1980s, we had the SLR (L1A1) which had a pistol grip but was as long and heavy as a WW2 era bolt action rifle. It also had a carrying handle: which we were only allowed to use to keep the body of the rifle off the ground if we had to place it down during, for instance, an inspection. Carrying handles were not used when using the trail position, even by the Dirty Buttons. We were expected to use the patrol position - butt in the shoulder, barrel forwards and slightly down, when in a situation where we could expect to come under fire, such as in areas of N. Ireland. You will see this in photographs from the period. It did tend to droop with fatigue. Meanwhile, SAS troops using H&Ks in the killing house practicing hostage rescue fired from a snapshot position with the weapon tucked under the arm, using the body to aim. I suspect the modern "SWAT position" has a lot to do with the general adoption of optical sights. You can bring up a weapon with iron sights to fire from the patrol position without ever taking your eye off the target: doing that with an optical sight you may have a momentary disorientation while your brain adjusts to the new picture. Additionally, the now ubiquitous red dot is only any use when your weapon is pointing at the target.

[@HandGrenadeDivision]

Great insight on optical sights. I trained on the FN C1A1 (Canadian version of the FN SLR) and remember unfondly how heavy it was. Now that you mention it, I don't remember ever carrying it at the trail or ever using the carrying handle. I don't think we did port arms for inspection either, which is why I goofed in the video by saying that movement wasn't part of the Commonwealth manual of arms in the Second World War. We do use an optical sight now, on the lighter C7 and are doing more "warfighter" type training which includes ready carry etc. Thank you for the thoughtful comment, and for your service.

[@thecuttingsark5094]

The weapons carriage thing is quite funny. I always chuckle when I see the Hollywood carry. A whole Platoon with weapons ready as if they were point man in dense jungle or armed with an MP5 in a hostage situation! Try patrolling like that for 2 hours, your arms will cramp up. In reality a soldier finds the balance between readiness and efficiency. Although, nothing funnier than watching 10 slowly moving targets in open ground looking super tactical

[@steelrad6363]

Many things can be replicated like uniforms and equipment, but little thought goes into the habits of the time. A good lesson in how history is lost.

[@KageMinowara]

It is the doom of men that they forget.

[@AnyClownShoe]

A lot of films like Passchendaele or 1917 had modern soldiers as extras which would explain the modern wpn carry as these are what we are drilled now

[@vilo_h5541]

At the 5:27 mark is Staff Sgt Tom Blakey of the 82nd Airborne on D-Day. He landed in a cemetery in St Marcouf and was later in the battle for La Fiere bridge. He was a friend of mine, whom I got to know when I worked at the National WW2 Museum in News Orleans as a volunteer. He was a crusty old bird who grew up in a single parent household in Nagadoches, TX where he honed his hunting skills. It was a privilege to be his friend.

[@zen4men]

Good to meet men who made history!

[@Redshirt214]

The funny thing is this creeps into other periods too... the modern way of treating POW’s apparently creeps into Civil War re-enactments too. I haven’t noticed anyone low carrying but that’s probably because rifle-mustkets are too long for that to be done comfortably.

[@nunogonzalez4037]

Finally someone adress one of the most weird and annoying defects in current war movies. The totally anacronistic modern stance and pose of soldiers depicting conflicts of the past and the abusive use of gestures used to signal command actions in the squad. Thank You

[@Unknown1355]

I actually didn't know about the WWII weapon carrying, until I was an extra in a WWII film. Finnish Unknown Soldier (2017) had a WWII enthusiast team to teach both actors and extras how to handle weapons. This was heavily needed, as most extras were reservists, taught with the modern methods and assault rifles. You can see the modern carry in 2007 Tali-Ihantala, but not in Unknown Soldier. Interestingly, the extras developed their owns way to carry the guns during marches. Whatever worked and was comfortable. Only the modern carry and Jesus-carry (rifle horizontally behind the neck, forming a cross) were forbidden.

[@michaeldorosh5047]

That must have been an amazing experience, I tried to buy a DVD or Blu-Ray copy of the film but got ripped off twice on ebay. The clips on KZbin look incredibly good, it doesn't surprise me that the extras learned how to do things right. I was an extra on Legends of the Fall many years ago, and it is really astonishing how much it is possible to learn about history on a film set. Probably much more so these days with the added attention to detail people are paying.

[@tostie3110]

During reenacting and planning, we work very hard to try and uphold some of these standards, and to get rid of bad habits that ruins photos

[@AlexSaysHi2013]

Having only trained with an assault rifle, I never even thought about this in depictions of WWII. The use of carrying handles in the post war period makes sense as well as there gradual phasing out. Very interesting video

[@vipertwenty249]

The more a person watches war movies the more likely it is that that person will look at real historical film online. The more a person watches real historical film the better educated that person will inevitably become, and the more that person will notice inaccuracies in movies. This results in an increasingly knowledgeable viewer base who become progressively less willing to watch inaccurate movies. It is therefore in the movie industry's best interests to make their product as accurate as possible.

[@MalfosRanger]

That follows, but I'll point out the axiom of historical accuracy in art is a very modern ideal. While we can and should make use of our resources to depict WWII and other modern conflicts accurately, one can step back and appreciate that anachronism itself is historical. Willing suspension of disbelief. Even as I say this, I get frustrated too with media not doing research.

[@Pivotguy419]

another thing to note about Hüftschuß, is that when readying for a bayonet thrust, the soldier would rotate his rifle so the trigger guard pointed outward, this was to facilitate quick retrieval of the rifle from the target, and so the blade could slip between the ribs more easily

[@soujiroseta4784]

Your Channel is good,continue with that good work, greetings from Colombia

[@TheEpicpwnr100]

@ 4:51 I can't find any concrete evidence stating exactly so, but I've heard numerous times that the M16's "carry handle" is not actually that. It is actually a vestigial design element intended to protect the charging handle when it was mounted on top. There are photos I have seen that corroborate this, as well as the fact that since its adoption American forces have been told not to use the handle as such or be punished.

[@HandGrenadeDivision]

I'm familiar with the early Armalite design and the charging handle, but can't find any reference that definitively states the rear iron sight wasn't also intended as a carry handle. Regardless, the FN shown in the video did have an obvious handle at the point of balance, and there are other examples. Though it seems that today it is becoming more common to replace handles with rails and optical sights and other accessories.

[@jasonyama333]

As a shooter and average history buff, I did notice that modern carry, also the finger off the trigger. When you look at photos soldiers didn't care about the modern finger off the trigger rule, not to mention the M-1 Grand has the safety in the trigger guard. I think the one thing people miss in cool historical photos many of them has been staged (posed). For instance that GI's crossing the bocage is now know as set of photos staged by the photographer.

[@harrykuheim6107]

That pointer "Finger Stuff" is relatively modern...It didn't exist in USMC in 70-74

[@jasonyama333]

I did recent see finger on side of frame of a German MG crewman carrying a Luger pistol and he had it pointed straight down. I have knew had a chance to fire a Luger but as a single action semi-auto to a known nice trigger, betting it was pretty light trigger pull.

[@L24-h8i]

Saw the modern style in 1917, which I found kinda weird since everyone else uses their weapon in the correct style of the time. Although, at least for me, I looked past it since they don't use the modern carry that often and the main characters do for the most part(from what I could tell) use the correct carry when not in combat.

[@HandGrenadeDivision]

I agree completely, I thought 1917 was much better than the trailer suggested it might be.

[@greenfox8418]

Man I'm working on a manga about the last 11 months of WW2 from Normandy battles to Hitler's Eagle Nest and your videos are truly really helpful for my work references. Keep it the good work and I look forward for vids from ya

[@ernstjunger714]

What's it called?

[@Bulbagaba992]

Oh man, with this knowledge some of my favorite 1/35 & 1/16 scale military figure manufacturers are guilty of this!😅 Also, I noticed in milsim games Post Scriptum achieves the correct firearm carrying position. So kudos to their devs!

[@Onobody]

I used to be skeptical of how arms were actually carried, thanks for clearing it up

[@tacticalministries3508]

It's weird when I first learned about the ready carry. I had it drilled into me so much it just felt natural and I didn't even think about there being a time before it existed. When I started getting into G I reenacting I caught a lot of crap for using the modern low ready carry

[@ReviveHF]

I'm revisiting this video after watching the Chinese drama called the "Longest day in Chang An", there is a one shot scene where the Medieval Era Chinese troops clearing the house filled with rebels with modern CQB tactics, finally the modern hand carrying techniques finally creeps into the medieval era.

[@hosko5956]

Old comment to be replying to but the Robin Hood movie from 2018 has a lot of this as well, I think it was originally meant to be a modern setting but they changed it late. They’ll have guys with bows and arrows running around like it’s Fallujah

[@TheMeanbubble]

Love the footage and resources taken from the CAF my dude. I also love the detailed explanations, it shows good research. Hope to see more homie.

[@TheHuscarl101]

The high port comes from generations of hunters, “hunting carry” is muzzle up so an accidental or premature discharge hits the sky not a brush beater or hunting dog, while low ready was specifically designed to hunt people, where premature discharge might still hit the target somewhere.

[@Janovich]

Thanks this is gold for a film maker

[@lib556]

Wow. I thought I was the only one to notice that actors in recent films are carrying their rifles like contemporary soldiers. Well done.

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

Excellent video, I have noticed some of these trends in historical photos and films in how they held their weapons compared to the modern day. But I never pinpointed these differences as a element of time. I always just considered the seemingly 'less formal' methods of old as something soldiers did on the field out of comfort and convenience because they are no longer heavily regulated as in training or at base.

[@davidgrandy4681]

Here's a few: In Saving Private Ryan the Colonel in Marshall's headquarters refers to the possibility that rescuers could end up "...KIA too". KIA (Killed in Action) is Vietnam war terminology, not WWII. The second is in countless WWII movies and TV shows (Band of Brothers for example) where the English were referred to as Brits. That's a 1980's creation and the Brits (so to speak) would have been referred to as Limeys of perhaps Tommies. Another (and the last here) has been fixed to a certain sense in dramas made of the last decades, but 1950's and 1960's movies were great right up until the first female character was introduced. Then you were watching The Battle of Britain if it has been fought in 1969, or 633 Squadron in 1964, at least according to the hair styles.

[@SlavicCelery]

Biggest anachronism that I see in war movies consistently, it's navel vessels sailing in straight lines while under attack. I knew that they maneuvered to avoid stuff, but watching combat footage of the USS Enterprise under attack from it's landing camera really changes the perspective of it all. Capital ships straight up were Tokyo drifting to avoid stuff. Movies never really show that element. Looking at you Midway.

[@dastemplar9681]

Makes sense, it explains why WW2 films before the 80s depicted soldiers like they were from, well, WW2. Exceptions like Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, and the Pacific are the only ones that make effort to properly depict weapon carriage, not always consistent, but at least for the majority or noticeable moments.

[@forrestgreene1139]

That low cradle position is a bird hunting position that was probably learned back when people did that sort of thing while growing up.

[@sirrathersplendid4825]

What a brilliant, informative video. Keep ‘em coming!

[@KnifeChatswithTobias]

There was an old episode of Combat where some officer is concerned with the way Saunders and his men are carrying their weapon, insisting that they should unsling the weapons and get them to a port arms or low carry position. Saunders commented his men knew what they were doing and that carrying their weapon constantly at the ready, isn't going to save them from a sniper or something like that. The only soldier in his squad that had both hands on a rifle and in the low carry position was the point man. I know it was just a TV show, but my old man had served in Italy during WWII and he pretty much echoed the same thing. Soldier did a lot of walking and it was tiring. Unless you were getting shot at or thee risk of getting shot at was imminent, the weapon was probably on your shoulder. And if you were getting shot at your rifle was held with both hands in the low carry position, when moving and your finger was damn well on the trigger. People look back on some of the movies from the 1950s and 1960s and think they the military advisors must've been fools. In reality, in many cases, the directors, producers, and advisors had actually been there. Not to mention many of the actors from those early WWII movies had also been there. We are now two or three generations away from those who actually fought the battle. On a final thought I think the high ready position may look good for the cameras/movies but also leads one to develop a type of tunnel vision and cause one to miss potential threats in peripheral vision - especially on the weapons side.

[@Johankenzeler]

Amazing to make a 10 minute video about how they carried their rifles and keep it interesting.

[@Kazkrin]

There was something like "intuitive shooting" - is something between snapshot and High Ready (I guess..) in Polish Army between 1918-1939. Basically, polish soldiers were thought to shot from shoulder, but not in high-aim position. Soldiers were not bringing sights to their eyes level but shoot with both eyes open. By training and quick calculating where to aim, they developed "intuitive shooting" - something between aimed fire and snapshoot.

[@a.b7393]

Was waiting for this since the german field uniform video. Glad that at least someone is addressing the matter. Shame that the high carry posture is probably here to stay for some time yet. Recently I saw it in the trailer for the WW1 film "1917", with little tommy braving a damp and narrow trench tunnel with his rifle held unpraticaly high and ready. Maybe that will change in the near future, when some producers learn that it's probably better to hire reenactors for historical productions than army vets and retirees.

[@alexanderchristopher6237]

I would love more war movies from the recent 10-20 years and not just from the world wars. That way, it'll be historically accurate by having recent vets as film advisors. Plus, I think WW2 films is being too oversaturated, especially since it's mostly just exploring topics and war theaters that's been done to death like US Pacific front or the Western Europe front from Allied POV. Would like some more recent Soviet, German, Japanese, or Chinese films on the matter, but I understand the lack of such movies given the politics of such topics.

[@a.b7393]

@@alexanderchristopher6237 Truth be told, Russia, China, Japan and to a lesser extent Germany still produce world war movies about their own POV. The problem is that, just like western productions, they tend to be action centred and (cheap) special effects packed spectacles with generic stories and characters that sometimes border 1940's propaganda movies (well, except the German ones, of course). My personal advice in those cases is generally to dig productions of the past. There are a number of good old war movies made by those countries. Japan especially have a bunch of great films, like Kon Ichikawa's "Fires on the Plain" and "The Burmese Harp", Okamoto's "Japan's Longest Day" and the excellent "The Human Condition" trilogy. In the 1950s and early 1960s, before the German new wave and when the country was still helmed mainly by war veterans, West Germany produced some interesting, albeit not always exciting, war titles, like “Stalingrad: Dogs, Do You Want to Live Forever?”, “Sharks and Little Fish”, “The Green Devils of Monte Cassino”, Bernhard Wicki’s classic “The Bridge“ and others. Soviet war movies of the same period while more visibly propaganda-laden are not least impressive, especially because of the availability of a gigantic pool of extras and genuine war hardware, with the Liberation series being an example of that.

[@jackedwards6738]

Your content just keeps getting better and better.

[@MarkAnthonyHenderson]

Thank you for the accuracy. We carried our weapons usually under our firing arm, or resting on our ammo pouches (lazy or tired), not at any recognizable "Ready" position during my first enlistment in the US Army. I did learn of high ready until 1983.

[@Lauv]

This video should be mandatory viewing for anyone working on WW2 games or movies. Excellent video.

[@Pikminarecool]

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that this is some of the most specific nitpicking I've seen in a moment, great video!

[@alanfaulkner6329]

The butt in the shoulder annoys the living daylights out of me. There are years worth of footage showing how it was actually done in WWII.

[@TheVefIt]

And it is kind of intuitive... if you try holding a rifle without a pistol grip like that for more than 5 minutes your wrist you hate you for the best part of the next century

[@allangibson2408]

@@TheVefIt And pistol grips on rifles became a thing in the German military from 1942 (along with assault rifles (SturmGewehr)). The Lewis and Bren brought this to the British forces a bit earlier. Firing from the hip was inherited from the BAR in WW1.

[@gwtpictgwtpict4214]

@@allangibson2408 The BAR only saw combat in the last two months of WWI. I think the French Chauchat, introduced in 1916, probably saw the first use of "walking fire", ie firing from the hip.

[@qboxer]

I enjoyed seeing Canadian soldiers conducting a field firing range and elsewhere as your example of modern carriage, and your drawing from the RCR Battle School aide memoire.... ah, the memories.

[@straggler64]

Something interesting I noticed is that in the pictures provided in the video, combatants armed with smg’s seem to be carrying in a manner very similar to the modern style. It doesnt at all invalidate the points made about bolt action rifles, but I find it interesting that the modern carry may have emerged naturally very quickly from the introduction of lightweight automatic weapons.

[@AICW]

Not just from lightweight weapons, I think it may have emerged from the fact that modern carry styles rely on having a pistol grip to comfortably wrap your hand around. Most of the long guns of WWII are full stocked rifles without a pistol grip. Only the SMGs had that. Nowadays, every military issued rifle has a pistol grip on it unless it's a bolt-action.

[@jeffkardosjr.3825]

Also for some reason he showed the M1 Carbine but didn't mention that could be an exception.

[@reastmanable]

I never bloody thought about this, its gonna look real awkward when I'm playing arma ww2 Milsim now. Good vid.

[@MBKill3rCat]

My thoughts exactly haha. We need a mod for authentic WW2 weapon carry anims.

[@kasrkin45]

Fantastic video, really well put together. It’s highlighted all but a few of my pet peeves in modern interpretations of the Second World War. Nice work! Edit: I participate in a lot of Living History events myself and it's amazing how many of these filter into the hobby. Do it right, or don't do it at all.

[@AudieHolland]

It did occur to me, when first seeing soldiers carrying those weapons in the modern, non-historical stance, 'Huh? Why didn't they do that more often?' I thought that the movie showing it was well-researched and that it simply hadn't caught my eye up to that point. Now it all makes sense. With an assault rifle as weapon (Sturmgewehr), you can instantly bring it up to firing a deadly stream of bullets. With a bolt action rifle, it makes no sense at all because you can't just start to fire without aiming. The German Mauser 98k rifle often had diopter sights, making it absolutely impossible to fire the weapon instantly.

[@forrestgreene1139]

I really like listening to this narrator. The content is top notch too.

[@LordSluggo]

If you watch Combat!, the Rat Patrol, or any of those other 60's WWII shows they tend to carry their weapons accurately

[@dorianphilotheates3769]

Excellent analysis and insight! Thanks for dispelling these commonly seen anachronisms. You really know your stuff!

[@dermotrooney9584]

Lovely stuff. Thanks very much. One correction though. 47 Div was not the only place British battle drill was taught. It became centralised doctrine (ish) from 1941.

[@ThePainterr]

Very informative overall......good coverage of mistakes modern reenactors make!!!! Well done you.

[@DukeExeter]

this video was awesome! I've known about the modern weapon carry inaccuracy but didn't realize the POW treatment was so inaccurate too. Please do more future videos about other anachronisms

[@Twirlyhead]

That was far more interesting than I expected. Keeping it _real_ .

[@full_regalia8649]

I’m glad I subbed to this channel. Some really well researched materials. Thanks

[@nativegerry335]

Depicting full squads of submachine gun armed soldiers is one common farb in movies of the 60s

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

the soviets did this, they had entire companies of SMG armed men

[@nebfer]

@@matthiuskoenig3378 Also to an extent the late war German army was headed that way as well, though not quite to the same extent that the Russians went (though generally one or two companies where so equipped though IIRC many units augmented other groups with them, I believe former rifle units generally kept their LMGs), many late war organization charts had many rifle companies with one or (sometimes) two platoons of "assault platoons" (Sturm Zuge in german), which where largely SMG or assault rifle equipped platoons (basically two squads of pure SMG/assault rifles and the third was a MG squad with two or three LMGs), the rest of the company was more conventional. But these only started to show up post D-day and even then not universal.

[@Toactwithoutthinking]

@@matthiuskoenig3378 from what I can find that was limited based on the role of the infantry battalion(?). Most that had smgs on from what Ive seen are attached to Tank Companies or in some urban assaults. The Soviets still preferred to use machine guns, mortars and heavy artillery to flush out enemies though.

[@IG-88r]

Cartoons of that era and postwar well into the 70s also show the low port position often

[@s4ss]

Low ready makes no sense once you fix the bayonet. Japanese Arisaka with a fixed bayonet was longer then most soldiers carring it.

[@MegaTang1234]

Oh my gosh, Thank you a million for making this!

[@ReviveHF]

In the movie Heat(1995), not a single cop or robber use modern CQB tactics, that means that movie is more authentic than other WW2 movies.

[@HandGrenadeDivision]

I watched that movie on a bus with other soldiers going to a training exercise. When Val Kilmer changes magazines and raps the hold open device to unlock the action and reload, there was much appreciation from the infantrymen.

[@ReviveHF]

@@HandGrenadeDivision Maybe you need to do a video about when the high ready and low ready CQB tactics became proliferate throughout the world because even the vintage 1980s SWAT team live fire exercises video does'nt even show the modern CQB tactics we often seen today. Here's the vintage video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rHrSep9th9ZnY7s

[@MSchmitz77]

Anything about how the Russians and Japanese carried their weapons?

[@SAGENT50]

Max Schmitz for what i have seen, most red army troopers carried their rifles in a style similar to the Port Arms High and it was thought as a drill/parade command. Check May Day parades and the Russians still use it up to this day. Most footage shows that position or the sling position.

[@davidharing6475]

From what I have seen of Japanese pictures and films of the era, I think the high port was closest in combat, and even on marches, as the Empire's standard rifles were rather long and usually carried with the really long bayonet attached, making for a weapon that was longer than the soldier carrying it was tall. The one hand balance carry is used some too, and on the shoulder or across the back seems to be limited to if they are carrying or placing something else, like a cannon or supply crates. Just what I observed though, don't quote me, my research is not thorough.

[@MSchmitz77]

David Haring I’ve seen a lot of footage of IJA troops use a one-handed carry

[@davidharing6475]

@@MSchmitz77 I looked up Japanese films after seeing your comment, and agree. The Japanese troops are generally using the one handed carry. One had a group quickly advance through some trees and take cover and most were doing the one handed carry. Another they were attacking some sort of complex, oil refinery if I had to guess by the smoke and fires around in the clip, and only one had both hands on his rifle, and he had a flag tied to his rifle so probably wanted to carry it higher to avoid stepping on it.

[@konstantinosnikolakakis8125]

Can you do an episode on the uniforms of the German Feldgendarmerie and feldjagerkorps and heerestreifendienst and marinekustenpolizei, it's a topic that's rarely talked about.

[@puppetmaster532]

Minor gripe, British and commonwealth did have a drill movement for port arms. It was incredibly common in both ww1 and ww2, in fact it was the default method of carrying the rifle in the attack during ww1. It was very common for other parade ground and administrative purposes too. it is by no means a solely U.S. thing.

[@HandGrenadeDivision]

A quick look at the current CF drill manual shows it is indeed still on the books, thanks for pointing this out.

[@edmundscycles1]

Didn't british muzzle loader and BotR do an entire series . Including weapon carry firing from the hip and shooting on the move with an SMLE.

[@sorichar]

Fascinating topic and a very well done video discussing it. Thanks for sharing, take care, Scott

[@abrahamedelstein4806]

Despite the ready position being anachronistic, it's a very natural position to carry your rifle in when expecting imminent contact, so I wouldn't count out that it was used by individual soldiers on occasion.

[@jeffkardosjr.3825]

Also shouldn't be counted out for the M1 Carbine and PPS-43.

[@gwtpictgwtpict4214]

Natural for a weapon with a pistol grip, I suspect it would get uncomfortable pretty quickly with a WWII bolt action rifle.

[@bobwhite8440]

Though the A1 had a carrying handle, we were drilled to carry it from the receiver, just forward of the bolt. Pretty much everything else in the vid is how I was drilled too.

[@Timotheus157]

Good points made. Thank you. History based movies must adhere to the highest accuracy possible to win high favor with audiences who demand it. Twisting the truth into lies and biased perspective decreases Hollywood greatness.

[@Wargoat6]

Yep, thanks to this vid I spotted tacticool in 1917.

[@MichalKaczorowski]

Yeah. With torches!

[@mari0664]

You're channe has grown man! Been here since the first video.

[@jakedee4117]

Good video, i guess a lot of military advisors are ex-soldiers not historians. Your sound is a bit off, maybe a new mic is needed ?

[@hadrianbuiltawall9531]

In "a bridge too far" there's a US paratrooper behind a wall with a "cricket". He uses it and gets what he thinks is the correct response. He steps out from behind the wall and gets shot by a German soldier with a bolt action rifle who had simply put a round in the breech. My grandfather who served in WW2 said this was the normal method of "safety" with a bolt action. They trained so often to do this, you defaulted to "empty breech" until you needed it loaded. The US had mostly semi-auto weapons so would have a slightly different weapon carry. They could also fire on the move more effectively unlike bolt action weapons. The prisoner thing is probably situational. WW2 soldiers have probably been in a great deal of danger for months, if not years and had a "lack of concern". Also, if the prisoners are within sound of a battle and they cause trouble, they'll simply be shot without repercussion to the shooter and they know this. Modern western armies have strict rules on the treatment of prisoners so you have to be very firm so as to avoid problems.

[@HandGrenadeDivision]

You are thinking of The Longest Day - also a movie about a Cornelius Ryan book - but I take your point. I don't know how "effective" firing on the move was, but General Patton refers to "marching fire" in his posthumous book of tactics, which no doubt was at least effective at suppression and only really possible with the semi-automatic Garand (what Patton referred to as the best battle implement ever devised).

[@HandGrenadeDivision]

The vignette was apparently informed by actual veteran's accounts. The scene also took place on D-Day, so not sure where the "few days of combat experience" would have come from. The vast majority of Allied troops were all literally in the first few hours of their combat experience.

[@hadrianbuiltawall9531]

I should point out that "sounds like" should be based on "all the gunfire has deafened me" to any minor sounds. If you compare them in a quiet environment they sound different but if you're ears are ringing from continuous loud noises all you'd hear is "click, click", You did one click, they did two clicks. This noise problem is the same one that counts against the "Germans hear the clink of the M1 loader clip and know you reloading" myth. Your hearing is screwed up in both situations.

[@mynameismin3]

this is a truly excellent subject and video. great work.

[@Dakurar]

This is the type of content I came to youtube for. Thanks.

[@ROBOHOLIC1]

Guess I won't be able to watch modern ww1 and ww2 media without noticing this now.

[@HandGrenadeDivision]

I've had some sharp words with my Director of Unintended Consequences, and you'll be happy to know his Christmas bonus this year will be extremely modest.

[@spidersmcfaintattack]

Excellent work, Im happy to see someone cover the issue of carry in such detail. Ive been noticing it more and more, and it bothered me that modern techniques are being applied to historical context. It will prove an interesting time capsule to look back on in 20-30 years once modern carry techniques have been retired. Will the next kind also be appied anachronistically?

[@HandGrenadeDivision]

As much as one shouldn't be using Hollywood to learn history from, it's interesting to go back to films like BATTLEGROUND or TWELVE O'CLOCK HIGH filmed almost immediately after the war and with war veterans on set. And wonder, how much of what you see is just Hollywood weirdness, and how much is 'authentic'?

[@MBKill3rCat]

I never really noticed this before, but it seems that the video game Red Orchestra 2 for the most part has authentic weapon carries (at least when sprinting, anyway)

[@Jack-Hands]

Just saw the trailer for 1917, it doesn't fare well in this department.

[@drs-Rigo-Reus]

well observed, as an ex infantryman I started laughing around the midpoint and never stopped until the end...... A cockup movie.

[@chrislondo2683]

@@drs-Rigo-Reus I overall liked 1917.

[@garypulliam3740]

@@drs-Rigo-Reus I too am Infantry. Yes, running around with their weapons in the constant high ready during WW1 made 1917 seem like a comedy.

[@garypulliam3740]

No. It does not.

[@Mr_Bunk]

Oh, well I guess the entire movie’s ruined forever because they didn’t carry the rifles quite right, everything else to be totally disregarded or nitpicked some more...get your head out your arse and stop demanding 1000% accuracy in everything. This is coming from someone who’s also into their military history and hardware, but is also into filmmaking as an art, not as a dull lecture.

[@BarrowX]

Actually the M16 "carry handle" was not designed to be one. It was a cover for the earlier Famas style charging handle seen on early AR10's, later modified to the current position due to becoming too hot.

[@HandGrenadeDivision]

The 8.8cm FlaK 18 was not intended to be an anti-tank gun but was certainly successful in that role as early as the Spanish Civil War. It is not uncommon for soldiers to use things in a manner not intended by the manufacturer....for what it is worth, after-market accessory vendors all seem to refer to it as a carrying handle. I imagine you are correct in the technical sense, but the video does discuss weapon carriage and how soldiers adapted.

[@edmundscycles1]

It was also needed to raise the sights to eye level due to the in line stock of the ar-10 and subsequent AR weapons .

[@mikhailv67tv]

Well researched and fascinating material, thank you for something familiar yet different. Regards from Australia

[@kingjoe3rd]

There is literally days/weeks (I don't know exactly how much but it's a lot) worth of film of WW2 soldiers in combat, training for combat, even movies filmed during the period that depict combat like "Battleground" and even the movies from later on do it correctly so it wouldn't be hard to get good reference material. I think it comes from having modern war veterans as technical advisors. On paper it seems like they would be the best suited for those roles but in reality they are literally the worst people you could have because they have muscle memory and habits that are anachronistic for period pieces like WW2. When I joined the US Marines Corps in 2002 I went through boot camp and all the old carry positions were drilled in to us from port arms to sling arms and everything in between. The tactical carry was a thing but only used on the range. We used them the whole time and even in to SOI (School of Infantry). It was when I got to my infantry unit that all of that stuff was basically thrown out the window and weapon carries were based around the three point sling and evolved as the war went on. I think these days they have weapon carries based around the three point sling (officially) but I don't really keep up with any of that too much.

[@llamallama1509]

Something I was completely unaware of, thank you!

[@mountbeckworth1]

How often I see soldiers in films work the bolt as they see the enemy; the rifle is unloaded up to this point. Or work the slide on an auto pistol after a full day in a combat area. Its like when someone with a pump action shotgun works the slide at the last moment, or even worse, works the slide half a dozen times without actually firing.

[@grantbernard3004]

Excellent video! My favourite Second World War films are from the 1960's or 70's (A Bridge Too Far for example). I think that unfortunately it's the contemporary films that begin to bring modern military thinking to the screen. Saving Private Ryan for example has been applauded for its realism yet I found plenty of historical inaccuracies.

[@lifepolicy]

Since the low ready feels the most natural to me when carrying a rifle at the ready I never thought that it might not be correct in some time periods.

[@theblitz6794]

Was the mp44 ever carried in a way similar to modern assault rifles

[@TheJere213]

MP44 and StG44 were basically same gun MP was just an earlier designation for StG

[@Ghastly1]

Low carrying a full length rifle with a bayonet attached is a good way to get stuck on something too.

[@Dalesmanable]

I’ve fired more WW2 era and modern weapon rounds than I care to think of and have carried them for hours on end. Keeping a WW2 rifle (303) at the shoulder is difficult, as is firing it - the kick is vastly more than on modern weapons and easily bruises (lazy firing quickly became too painful). Try holding a 303 in a firing position standing.

[@julianmorrisco]

We were not taught the modern ready carry positions in 1983. I don’t recall exactly the name of what we were taught but it definitely was more like the WWII stuff mentioned here. We did use the occasional M16, but in my country’s army the SLR (the FN, basically) couldn’t easily be carried this way - too long and heavy. One anachronism that kills immersion for me is the near universal, no matter the country (assuming English speaking), use of the term ‘Roger That’. If we added a flourish like the ‘that’ to radio chatter, we’d have probably been fined. Definitely been yelled at. The same applied to the US troops we exercised with. So I find it disconcerting when a WWII era based piece of media (game or film , basically) has someone responding to someone with ‘Roger That’. It’s disconcertingly informal and modern. And near universal.

[@HandGrenadeDivision]

Roger That is fascinating to me. It's so pointless. It means exactly the same thing as just "roger'. The oldest instance of it in use I can find is the film Platoon where one of the NCOs uses it at an orders group. I do wonder where it came from and if it was an actual bit of jargon, or if it derived from Hollywood. Incidentally, I did my basic training with the FN in the same era you did yours. I don't recall being taught a ready carry either.

[@jeffkardosjr.3825]

Has me thinking, maybe I should use the French "parle" on amateur radio.

[@scottishconfederate]

You do excellent work, your videos are well put together, interesting, entertaining, informative and well researched. I would make one suggestion that I would urge you to look into though, I think it would be very beneficial for you to look into voice exercises.

[@HandGrenadeDivision]

I have the face for radio but unfortunately not the voice! It is something I'm aware of and seeking to improve, I appreciate the delicately worded suggestion.

[@yackk9474]

Keep this up, you're going to be big some day. Great stuff!

[@ppsh43]

At 3:20, one of the G.I.s in the photo is carrying in the low ready position.

[@ppsh43]

Upon closer examination, the rifle butt is not at the shoulder.

[@HandGrenadeDivision]

@@ppsh43 Yes, this is a good example of the underarm carry discussed elsewhere in the video.

[@svenerikmoeller8809]

Cool clip dude, say what’s the funky background music 6 minutes in?