War Myths You Believe Because of the Movies - Sideprojects Reaction

[@graffitisamurai]

One of the biggest things war media overlooks is time. Even small arms skirmishes could take hours to conclude.

[@rammsteinrulz16]

It being "difficult" to summarize days or even months of fighting into an hour (the other hour being for dialogue and exposition) is an understatement of WW2 proportions

[@gmiller4165]

Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers come to mind. The battle at Omaha took something like 9-12 hours to conclude, but it’s only 30 minutes in the film. The Battle of Brecourt when Winters assaults the German artillery guns lasted something like 2-3 hours, but in the show it’s the final 15-20 minutes of the episode. Obviously multi-hour long battles can’t be adapted at a 1 to 1 ratio, so they get cut down to the main impact points that occurred.

[@EstonianShark]

@@gmiller4165 Great examples, one that definitely has stuck in my mind, is Sgt John Basilone's MoH battle at Guadalcanal in the show "The Pacific" I think in the show, the battle lasted maybe 25 or 30 minutes? When in reality I believe it was something like 4 days of continuous fighting. And I'm also sad to see they never included the September Matanikau action where two companies of Chesty Puller's 1st Battalion marines got surrounded and needed Coast Guard landing craft to help get them out of there, leading to Douglas Munro, the only Coastguardsman to receive a medal of honour. But we have to come to reality and understand of how hard it is trying to turn something like WW2 into a 3 hour movie at max. Take Oppenheimer for example, they go from the 1930s to the end of World War 2 in like 2 hours, it's almost impossible to cover 2 decades worth of events equally so they just skip to the important/significant parts.

[@Maria_Erias]

@@gmiller4165 This is alluded to in Band of Brothers, as if I'm remembering right, after the initial engagement, Winters sends back a runner for Buck Compton's squad and for explosives.

[@keenannash2947]

Yea but thats because the nature of movies in general... you've got 2 hours to tell a story spanning weeks, months, or maybe even years. The time of everything (cooking, cleaning, travel, medical procedures, etc.) is understated in movies.

[@marcusaurelius4941]

Imagine a 6 hour long arthouse WW1 movie and it's just 6 hours of unrelentless artillery shelling

[@TheRedleg69]

As an artilleryman I'm all for this.

[@TheRedleg69]

As an artilleryman I'm all for this.

[@alfpabravoloboking]

As an artilleryman I'm all for this.

[@shawnmiller4781]

Sounds like required viewing at Ft. Still

[@dailypunch6249]

As an artilleryman I'm all for this.

[@crcb251]

For the topic of "gunfire and hearing loss", one film scene that stuck with me was in Black Hawk Down, where one Ranger fires an M249 right next to the head of another one, who is immediately deafened for the rest of the film

[@brianhall4182]

For me, Black Hawk Down is one of my favorite modern war movies. It feels the most 'real' in terms of how the soldiers are portrayed, how they act, and how they fight.

[@steveclarke6257]

Artillery still causes more than its fair share of casualties today, most of the casualties in Ukraine are caused by artillery and mortar fire

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

Great point.

[@Mgbn78]

Definitely. I’d assume a small proportion of deaths are by small arms, the Ukraine war is certainly a war of artillery and drones.

[@Edax_Royeaux]

A great deal of the many tank kills were caused by Ukrainian artillery, not javelins. They'd used the javelins to trap a tank convoy at the front and back and used artillery to crush the center.

[@terryjohnson5579]

​@@Edax_Royeauxwell shit if it's a plan and it works then well don't right.

[@ToilsomeAtom2]

​@@Edax_Royeauxtalking about casualties in general

[@jimpemberton]

Trauma due to artillery: There's a reason PTSD used to be called "shell shock".

[@charlayned]

I said that same thing.

[@hellsSG]

I can not imagine many worse things than sitting in the trenches in ww1.

[@ericwagner1824]

George Carlin did a bit on euphemism. Shell Shock became Combat Fatigue became PTSD.

[@9999bigb]

A huge pet peeve of mine is when a character will call their NCO "sir". I made that mistake once, and was told "Im not a sir, I work for a living" before learning a very valuable life lesson

[@gregorybryan9988]

Depends on your branch of service, I think. I was Army, we did not call NCOs "sir" but Marines might. I'm not sure.

[@nythx2476]

VTH with Simon Whistler? We're reaching Tangent Levels that shouldn't be possible!

[@So_Uncivilized]

Fascinating tangent Simon, moving on

[@NoMercy745]

With the Battle of Verdun, the opening of The Fields of Verdun says it best. As the drum roll started on that day Heard a hundred miles away A million shells were fired And the green fields turned to grey The bombardment lasted all day long Yet the forts were standing strong

[@justinlay4593]

A Bridge Too Far has what I think might be the best depiction of an artillery bombardment on film. It's even edited so that the guns are shown firing and casings ejected almost in drumbeat unison.

[@warlordofbritannia]

A Bridge Too Far just tends to have the best depictions altogether

[@johnwilletts3984]

From U.K.: Since retiring 7 years ago I’ve been volunteering as a Tour Guide in the city of York along with four historic sites, so almost full time. During this time, I have to say that I’ve come to hate movies. People will often disagree with me because they have seen something in a movie. What I hate most is when they use the names of real people, but then present a total fiction. Worse of all was that most notorious movie ‘Braveheart’ that presents a completely fictitious account of history. Imagine if we produced a revenge movie on say the life of Washington. He would be depicted in a cowboy suit with Indian Warpaint as he invades Scotland to eat babies! The issues is most people don’t read history and so depend on movies for their history fix. However blogs like this on KZbin are helping to correct the damage done. Keep up the good work.

[@austinwilkerson84]

Shout out to York, one of the best spots in the U.K!

[@charlayned]

Washington description had me almost snort ginger cookie out my nose. Brilliant description.

[@drs-xj3pb]

@@charlaynedI, for one, want to see that Washington movie.

[@sheronasims6783]

I don't swe Bravehearr as completely fictitious. Wallace rebelled. He won a battle, lost a battle was betrayed and executed.

[@nicolaischartauandersen8796]

@@sheronasims6783 fair point; , it's not completely fictitious. But the overall heroic portrayal in the film probably says a lot more about a human need for romantic heroes, rather than coming close to the actual person or events.

[@cyqry]

11:00 When you're talking about reenactment, I primarily do medieval so don't get to play with guns much but when I've done anything involving black-powder we typically end up using a quarter of the usual measurements you'd find during that period and its still painfully loud. On note of smoke as well, my group (I wasn't present unfortunately) did the Battle of Waterloo a few years back and the show runners actually had to stop everyone firing so the smoke could clear. Unfortunately during this time everyone took the opportunity to reload, so every single weapon fired pretty much at the same moment when the show-runners gave the go-ahead and apparently the entire field became a cloud of black-powder smoke.

[@charlayned]

Did a lot of SCA back in the early-mid 80s and people would forget that a rattan sword doesn't swing like steel. We had some guy at a panel talk about how he could swing a 2-handed like a short one handed. My brother handed him his big 2-hander (we had demonstration steel with us for the talk) and said "stand over there and swing that one handed while I lecture." Five minutes later, the guy was sweating and had to put the sword down and sit. Yeah, not rattan, buddy.

[@cyqry]

@@charlayned Not sure why that's relevant. Most people I know in reenactment don't regard SCA as part of the same thing but a different sword-based hobby. We use steel here too and a few of our members also larp and find it amusing to see how the "tough" ones trying fighting us with steel where we have the home-field advantage.

[@kylewilson2819]

You are absolutely right about the issues regarding hearing loss in war. I remember attending a Civil War reenactment and being blown away at how LOUD everything was, and that was just from firing blanks! The WW2 reenactment was far worse since they were firing Howitzers. We were about half a mile away from where the main guns were and my ears were still ringing painfully after the first barrage.

[@cggc9510]

Blanks are louder than real rounds. Not by much, but they are louder.

[@kylewilson2819]

@@cggc9510 Yes, but the sound is different.

[@curlus]

About Battleship turrets: A few battleships, such as Bismark, just had their turrets sitting in their barbettes without anything holding them. But most had retaining clips to keep the turrets from having any chance of slightly 'jumping' in rough seas while trying to track a target. Most battleship wrecks where the ship is upside down still have the turrets attached.

[@antoninuspius1747]

Just to add, the hold down clips are mainly to prevent the turret from pitching up during firing and damaging the bearings the turret turns on. That's why there's more clips in front than in the rear. They're actually very precisely installed with tight tolerances. Wrecks where the turret has fallen out are from ships that sustained tremendous damage and mostly deep water wrecks where the battle damage plus additional underwater damage from magazine explosions and bulkheads failing, etc., overstressed the clips.

[@Icemann89]

Tank turrets must be fixed too. Look at the russian tank biathlons (when they still could afford to hold such events). Those tanks are jumping without their turrets budging.

[@victornunes900]

Another thing movies often get wrong about infinite ammo is overheating. If you fire a machinegun continually for long enough the barrel will literally break apart from the heat. The damage can be severe enough that it might even kill the one using it.

[@thecraigster8888]

Speaking of overheating, showing a soldier standing up and firing a machine gun by hanging onto the barrel with his left hand to make sweeping motions. Even though it’s an over the top satire and there is a subtext to his actions, Gen. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove shooting from his office grips the barrel of his gun nonstop during very long bursts of fire. It is amusing on several levels.

[@charlayned]

@@thecraigster8888 And the reason there is a grip on the front of a Thompson sub-machine gun. As my brother used to say, that gun climbs like a homesick monkey going up a tree. But I've seen gangster movies where the guy holds it one handed....

[@thecraigster8888]

@@charlayned I’m talking the classic WWII Browning .30 cal machine gun. The one with the barrel that is totally vented with air holes for cooling.

[@9999bigb]

Classic example of this is the part of the D Day landings in Saving Private Ryan when the MG42 basically Rambos the entire landing craft in one go. In real life that gun crew would have a lot of explaining to do with their melted shut barrel.

[@yankee1112]

There’s a reason artillery is referred to as the ‘King of Battle’. You can search drumfire artillery and get a taste of what those must have sounded like. It’s uncomfortable just listening to fake sound like that, I can’t imagine the real thing. Thanks for the videos Chris.

[@mike6252]

A pet peeve on mine is how aerial combat is portrayed in movies. In the movie Flyboys there’s so many sensational, dramatic flying maneuvers that are clearly depicted for effect rather then accuracy. Dog fights were deadly enough just by their very nature, they don’t need all kinds of improbable maneuvers and pointless theatrics to depict a tense life or death struggle between these machines.

[@PeteOtton]

Most "dog fighting" didn't happen. It was a lot of dive into a formation, shoot a plane or two pull out and regain altitude.

[@pablocointry]

Drumfire with artillery is the crazyest thing i learned in this channel, it blew my mind for real. Another annoying thing in war movies is when everyone drop dead after 1 shot.

[@HistoryWarCinema]

Glad to hear him talk about the hearing loss and the noise of guns. I have to explain this so much. I have damage and that when almost always wearing protection. It’s impossible to do a nightime raid on a compound and not get found out when it’s dead silent. Think most rifles are still between 125 and 140 db with a suppressor. The echo is less though, therefore harder to pinpoint where a shot is coming from, handy with sniper shots. Also the muzzle flash is suppressed, also convenient at nighttime. The reason suppressors are also used so much today is because they reduce recoil and barrel movement by a large amount. This is ofcourse very benificial in a firefight.

[@Evan-ph7jh]

You channel has been SO good in the last several weeks. Been watching since your first Oversimplified videos and the last few weeks have been some of your best work

[@llandrin9205]

I remember reading an account written by a man who had served in the Civil War referencing cannon balls. He said after hitting the ground they would then roll along it. One time a fellow soldier put his foot out to stop one. It took his foot off and kept rolling without even slowing down.

[@warlordofbritannia]

Yeah, I’ve read that one too-I think it was Company Haytch?

[@jeremypnet]

I read a similar account from somebody in the British army in the Napoleonic wars.

[@coenisgreat]

The thing with the term Silencer vs. Suppressor is that Silencer came first. Invented by Hiram Percy Maxim in 1902 or so, they were advertised as Maxim's 'Silencers' and the name stuck, technical accuracy of the term be damned. Also, according to his wikipedia page, he helped with the development of the muffler for internal combustion engines.

[@luisf2793]

The muffler part I knew Didn’t know that silencers were that old

[@troyreazin4949]

We're actually told not to use full auto fire, mostly for ammo consumption, and really only saw gunners frequently fire full auto

[@HDreamer]

IIRC it was a point they noticed in Vietnam, that soldiers would just blast away and run out of ammo in seconds, due to panic setting in during a fight, especially as it often was an enemy ambush. So it was made standard to teach soldiers not to use auto fire.

[@troyreazin4949]

Exactly that's why the m16 had a 3 round burst

[@idiotengineer3925]

You touched on it but the confusion in real combat is surprising. In a regular fire fight infantrymen are constantly running back and forth between teams and squads to scream at each other where the enemy even is because unlike movies, very few people use tracers and sound travels in weird ways. It's also weird to see everyone have radios in modern military movies. Youre lucky if each squad leader has one, let alone team leaders and regular infantrymen.

[@bastiangaete2419]

Nice video men Hey Chris I am from Chile and love your channel this Monday is September 11 were here we commemorate the Chilean coup and the tragedy of the dictatorship that came after. Here we are well aware of the US involvement in this part of our history and I would love if for the 50 anniversary you could make a video about it since I personally would love to hear your opinion regarding this moment that our countries history got intertwined.

[@tommcdonald1873]

Simon did a pretty good job on this one and your analysis was a good accentuation.

[@greenknightofwar7024]

Since you brought up Midway, the scene with all the anti aircraft fire is probably one of the most inaccurate scenes I’ve seen in a historical movie. The standard Japanese anti aircraft guns are some of the most horrible designs in naval history. Especially since I believe you you could only fire 150 shots before reloading all three magazines. It was such a problem that the sailors would pretty much be forced to reload and fire at the same time. Also the fact that at the time Japanese carriers(Akagi, Kaga, Hiryu, and Soryu) most of the anti aircraft were positioned in a way to were most couldn’t shoot at the angle to hit dive bombers. Most of the planes shot down at Midway was from the constant zero patrols.

[@Edax_Royeaux]

They are not the most horrible designs in naval history, as far as I am aware Japanese dual purpose and triple purpose anti-air batteries were "good enough". Before Pearl Harbor most navies had terrible anti-aircraft weapons, for the US, Pearl Harbor was the wake up call to cram as much AA as possible on their ships, Japan had no such wake up call until it was too late. The Japanese 10 cm/65 Type 98 naval gun was perhaps one of the best anti-aircraft naval guns of the war but there weren't enough of them to make a difference, Japan's industrial base was just too small.

[@panzerwafflez7228]

Really? The "most inaccurate"? Because that attack on the carriers had a lot of accurate details, even more than your typical US war film: 1. The whole part of the dive bombers following a destroyer that was attacking a US sub in the area. **Accurate** 2. Both dive bomber groups from Yorktown and Enterprise getting mixed up and targeting the same carrier by accident. **Impressively accurate** 3. Richard Best seeing the confusion and turning away to attack the Kaga followed by only 2 wingmen. **Accurate** 4. The number of bomb hits on each Japanese carrier (4 on Kaga, 3 on Soryu, and 1 from Best on Akagi). **Accurate** 5. The detail in fact that the US bombs **did not** sink the carriers but caused secondary explosions which crippled the carriers, forcing the Japanese to scuttle them. **Accurate** So in conclusion, people really need to give Midway more credit. Yes, the CGI and the overexaggeration of action scenes (cough cough water spray) reeks of typical Hollywood but considering the historical quality of your typical WW2 film, Emmerich really did try to make the film somewhat accurate as possible.

[@Edax_Royeaux]

@@panzerwafflez7228 The CGI action scenes are how the film depicted Midway, the titular battle. They constantly show American planes getting downed by AA when the vast majority of US planes that got shot down were from Zeroes.

[@panzerwafflez7228]

@@Edax_Royeaux Yes I know showing the Japanese 25mm as an effective gun was a big inaccuracy, but this was in response to OP who said Midways scenes were somehow the "most inaccurate in all war movies" even though this scene and especially the movie still got many things historically right.

[@marquisdelafayette1929]

@@Edax_Royeauxthat’s why as the US developed better AA weaponry the Japanese turned to kamikazes with the thought of “if you are just going to get shot down and crash then you my as well crash purposefully and take out a ship “.

[@philipscalf9147]

The importance of understanding the difference between historically accurate vs historically authentic is invaluable

[@ronbednarczyk2497]

During the American Civil War there four basic types of artillery rounds: shot, shell, case, and canister. Shot was a solid round. Shell was a hollow round filled with powder and fused to explode over the opposing troops, with the shell fragments inflicting damage. Case was a shell round that had steel balls added to the interior so that both the shell fragments and balls caused damage. Canister was a large shotgun shell that was used at short range. There was a contact fuse called the Schenkl Percussion Fuse. It wasn't very reliable. BTW there was a hand grenade during the Civil War called the Ketchum Hand Grenade. It looked like one of those old lawn darts. It wasn't very reliable because it had to land on the nose plunger in order to activate.

[@warlordofbritannia]

Canister was particularly useless due to the range and accuracy of rifles having made sure any battery would be put out of action before they could load it. Shell wasn’t particularly effective either due to the prominence of fieldworks by 1864 at the latest. And shot was best used against closely aligned infantry, which no longer existed except for in suicidal charges. Artillery got nerfed hard in the ACW I guess is the point 😂

[@forgottenfamily]

IIRC: One of the things the British discovered during WWI was a shell on a sector every 2hrs even when not actively in combat was perfect for bleeding long term combat readiness without requiring excessive resources when it wasn't the focal point of the attack

[@sethwalters1509]

One major thing regarding airplane ammo, (one of the things I found in my research in preparation for SNAFU Podcast) was that not only did you have to make short ammo bursts (1-2 Tracer Rounds at a time) to save ammo, but for bomber crews, even at 30,000 feet and being exposed to -30 to -70 degree temperatures, more than 10 tracer rounds put the gun at risk of jamming or worse due to the barrel becoming red hot and developing fractures and possibly causing blockage and with the next fired live round, a violent explosion. Imagine being a gunner on a B-17 or B-24, and you've got a ME-109 heading for you, sending bullets your direction, and you have to have the discipline and nerves of steel to not give it the whole nine yards as a way to hit your target or deter your target from continued attacks. For a pilot/crew member of a plane in the skies during world war 2, the Germans/Japanese weren't the only thing trying to kill you.

[@jamessapp4989]

Another inaccuracy you see a lot with WWII tank movies is that the vast majority of German tanks were Tigers and Panthers and that they were almost unstoppable monsters and that the Sherman always needed to get a rear shot to take them out. First, even by 1945 the majority of German tanks were the earlier Panzer 3 and 4 and Stug 3, tanks that a standard equipped Sherman could knock out from the front. Second, while the standard 75mm gun struggled to take out Tigers and Panthers, there were many Shermans that had larger guns. You mentioned the movie Fury and that is a pretty good depiction of tank warfare, but the Tiger scene has a lot of problems, if you look, Fury has a much more powerful 76mm gun that could have taken out that Tiger from the front no problem. Potential History did a good video on that scene I highly recommend. Also, some tankers came up with some pretty inventive ways to deal with the German heavies, I heard of shooting high explosives or smoke rounds at the enemy tanks, and if they hit, it might cause the crew to panic and leave the tank.

[@warlordofbritannia]

Besides their combat performance, the Tigers and Panthers were ridiculously cost-inefficient as well-that’s the double whammy of bad equipment.

[@themightycongueror8383]

@@warlordofbritannia From what I know, both the Tiger, and the Panther had very powerful guns, and were pretty advanced for the time, but they also had a lot of mechanical problems, especially the Tiger. There was also way more Shermans (which were pretty reliable in many different areas good guns, decently fast, decent armor) than Tigers. I think there was something like 50-60 thousand Shermans in total, but only like 8 thousand Tigers. I think war films like to portray the Tigers more than Panzer III's because let's be honest, the Tiger is iconic, and looks way cooler. It's kind of like the T-34 vs's an IS-2, T-34's were way more common than IS-2's, but IS-2's are way cooler, so why not portray Tigers fighting IS-2's instead of the more likely Tiger vs T-34 or even T-34 vs Panzer IV?

[@warlordofbritannia]

@@themightycongueror8383 “they also had a lot of mechanical problems” Which is why they sucked. No one cares how good you look or how the heavy the gun you carry is if you’re not going anywhere but the junk pile

[@rustyknott-W.D]

A Vietnam Marine vet I know said the most realistic thing he'd seen in a war movie was Lieutenant Dan in Forrest Gump telling his charges to change their socks whenever they could.

[@richardarriaga6271]

Trench foot is no joke

[@jimpemberton]

Loud ammo. We were taught to use ear plugs. These only go so far, and if you don't have them in, you can still be surprised before you get a chance to put them in. I was grateful for the helmets when I transferred to tanks. The headset built into the tanker helmets served as fair hearing protection, especially with such a large gun. I managed to come out of the service with fairly normal hearing, even after having served in Desert Storm (which was a mild conflict by comparison to most).

[@Rammsoldat]

In regards to artillery my great grandfather was in WW1, he got a medical discharge but snuck back in when his brother enlisted. After the war whenever anything got him agitated or excited he'd shake uncontrollably and a lot of other veterans would have similar issues, basically shell shock. I remember my Grandad telling me about a time he'd punched a guy in the face at a football match because the guy had started making fun of my great grandad when he got excited by the game and started to shake. As for exploding tanks, the movies may ham it up but those old soviet tanks the Russians are currently using seem to like throwing their turrets about then they pop.

[@jamesfetherston1190]

There is a beautiful song by the 1960s group The Zombies called "Butcher's Tale 1914" that speaks from the point of view of a WWI soldier--the chorus is haunting: And I can't stop shaking My hands won't stop shaking My arms won't stop shaking My mind won't stop shaking I want to go home Please let me go home Go home

[@vodyanoy2]

I once stood next to somebody firing an AK-47 at full auto and to this day it was the loudest 5 seconds of my life. I've been to rock concerts and even right next to the stage wasn't as loud.

[@CaribbeanHistory]

Mines would be the exchange of musket fire in warfare. People think that they would literally wait for the other side to fire before firing like if it were some multi man duel. This is because the movie sometimes can’t show the shots in a single wide frame so they just show one side then the other. In reality, they would fire at discretion of the officers whenever they were ready and even fire at the same time.

[@CJ_esc.artist]

Great reaction video Chris. As a former WWII reenactor myself it’s good to mention that the “blank” rounds used in re-enactments don’t generally carry the same amount of powder as a live round would making real or live small arms even a little louder. Not only the sound of a weapon but if you’re close enough there’s even a little concussion that goes along with it. Not being a real war veteran myself I can ONLY imagine the constant deafening live firing associated with real battle. Ugggg. Cheers.

[@forgottenfamily]

I can't really blame them for it but one of the important myths to understand is the sheer length of battles. For example, Brecourt Manor in Band of Brothers was something like a 3hr battle but for very reasonable reasons, it only takes about 15 minutes in the show with no impression of a time jump

[@Mamaki1987]

Yes, I got to see a reenactment about 10 years back when I visited the US. Being European I never had heard any real gun being fired. It absolutly surprised me how loud those guns were, even when using just blanks. No wonder people wear ear protection during training with fire arms.

[@michaelkaster5058]

today i learned that explosions are loud, still don't know where the rain comes from though. I mean it just appears from the sky, pretty crazy.

[@godwarrior3403]

​@@michaelkaster5058Haha to be fair, if you've never been around guns then your familiarity with them is games and TV. Where they never run out of ammo, shoot in rooms and cars with no hearing protection and don't react to it and even hold casual one liner heavy conversation during gunfights, etc. I'm not new to guns and sometimes I "forget" they're loud, because I always have my ears on. But sometimes I forget my ears in the house and I'll think "It ain't a big deal" and I'm always surprised at how loud even a little gun is. Granted it's a little below average to make that mistake as an adult more than once haha But it's understandable for someone outside of gun culture to not know how guns really are. I mean grenades make fireballs and explode whole houses in movies. They're definitely not a realistic representation.

[@CousinJustice15652]

I recently learned how to use a handgun. Even a little .22 pistol is not something you want to shoot without hearing protection. I knew before how loud guns are in real life, but I didn't stop to think too hard about how altered the sound magnitude is in movies. Now I'm much more aware.

[@Mamaki1987]

@@godwarrior3403 Exactly lol, I only know Guns from the Fallout games and of course TV. They are really nothing like how they portrait them in media. It was so interesting to see and hear that in real live. Granted, I could have gone to a shooting range, but it never occured to me.

[@matthewhaynes6667]

2:57 “let me interrupt him and say I wont try to interrupt him” lol

[@ianbaird7449]

My fave thing about war films is identifying the tanks actually used to portray tigers. The funniest is "Battle of the bulge", the "tigers don't look even close, they made zero effort to make the M46 Patton's look like tigers. The Sherman's were all chaffees. The only thing they used that accurate were the jeeps.

[@samgott8689]

The nighttime gun ship support scene towards the end of Blackhawk Down was probably the most accurate for ammo count: it does two quick strafing passes against targets on a rooftop, and then has to head back to HQ to rearm.

[@Pbo91]

Insider just did a video with Gary Adelman where he rates how realistic civil war movies are.

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

Yep. I shared the link to that video on Facebook yesterday. Good stuff

[@shawnmiller4781]

One of the earliest bloopers involved a revolver. I forget the name of the film but it was a silent era western. The opening title card is shown and then opens up on a cowboy facing the audience with his six shooter out “pointed” at the crowd and he starts firing. Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Click Click Click Click And he was using a single action so he hand to pull the hammer back as well and pull the trigger each time

[@drs-xj3pb]

I think you're referring to The Great Train Robbery, from 1903, said to be the first narrative film. That scene was separate from the rest of the film, unconnected to the plot, and could be shown either at the beginning or the end. I've mostly heard of it being at the end. A seminal moment in movie history.

[@datadude295]

The biggest thing I wish they would have pointed out is the friendly to enemy kill ratios. Every. Single. War. Movie. Gets this massively wrong. They ALWAYS show the “good guys” just taking out sooo many enemies withlike 10 to 1 or 20 to 1 enemy to good guy kill ratios. This is not how it is, EVEN in modern war. The firefights are almost always pretty dang even in real life even with massive equipment differences. The large majority of actual kills occur from ordinances.

[@rayven203]

Is there a more accurate name for a Simon Whistler channel than "Side Projects"? That man has more channels that Comcast.

[@Yankeesoldier23]

Grenades do not explode in great fireballs and do such extensive damage as shown in movies and tv shows.

[@scotthix2926]

Age, most soldiers even officers are 25 or younger, no Tom Hanks “ saving private Ryan” or John Wayne “ longest day”

[@richardcaves3601]

To re-rmphasise how important and effective artillery was in WWII, watch the Dr James Holland documentary on Normandy. The standard tactics used by American, British and Canadian forces was to probe forward to contact, pull back, then blast the s*#t out of the contact position, with both artillery and fighter-bombers. Worked every time. Another was during the closing of the Falaise Gap and the reduction of the Bulge, where the infantry held their position and watched as the combined might of artillery, fighter-bombers and medium bombers pounded the enemy. Huge Tigers and Panthers were found completely overturned, ttacks in the air, and German infantry were found wandering around in a daze. Rarely accurately portrayed in movies.

[@clashmustache]

During a History assembly at school, our history teacher made a comment about artillery and how it wasn't the slow and loud, Boom... Boom... Boom... that you think it was. He actually said the most realistic way to imagine it is to cover your ears with your palms and then on your head, tap your head with your fingers in quick succession.

[@srikrishna2205]

Hot take : I know that 100% of revenue from these reaction videos go to the original creators but VTH just adds so much to these videos with his insights and creates visibility for these OG creators that it makes me wonder if some reaction video creators who actually add credible stuff to videos should get atleast a small percentage of the revenue from their videos.

[@charlayned]

My husband agrees on the using the wrong era tanks in a movie. Makes him nuts. And, I grew up with a brother who was a weapons expert and he taught movie and writers weapons. I have seen him go totally insane when watching a movie where the guy screws on a silencer on a revolver. We used to do a drinking game where we would count the number of shots and if there was more than the number, you took a...shot. Oh, and holding the damned 9mm pistol sideways. That throws off your aim and your ability to control the weapon. Oh, and on the sword and board stuff, taking a two handed great sword or claymore into a low tunnel dungeon. And holding that same sword one handed and fighting like it's an rapier. He actually handed one to a guy and had him swing it one handed for as long as he could while my brother lectured. Took 5 minutes for him to wear out sweating. Rat Patrol: jeep jumping over sand dunes while firing the 50 cal machine gun on the back, blowing up tanks. OMG..............

[@wadesanecki7269]

In high school, I had a teacher that served as a waist gunner on a B-17 bomber. He often told us about shooting in very short 2-3 second bursts. Nothing longer, as was portrayed in the movies.

[@mdiciaccio87]

I am from Australia, so not much of a gun culture here. Though i have fired a few guns on holidays. In vietnam, i fired an m60 at a range, and a friend fired an AK at the same time... my ears were ringing for HOURS. Really gave me a new perspective on how frightening it would be to be in an actual battle

[@steveclarke6257]

film inaccuracies for me, loading torpedoes in a submarine..So it is not a device you and a couple of mates can "push" into a torpedo tube- the things weigh over 2 tons, it takes "block & tackle" and the immense effort of the loading crew of about ten men to get one of those things into a tube. Once your loaded tubes are empty, you are not going to reload anytime soon.

[@jenniferparker5189]

I remember that being portrayed much more accurately in the movie K-19; where Liam Neeson was helping the torpedo men unload & load a torpedo after a man had been injured in doing the task.

[@Grim2]

There's one video in which Simon said Sarajevo was archduke's Ferdinand's wife.

[@iammattc1]

18:20 Open Range. In the big shootout, Kevin Costner fires his revolver roughly 30 times without reloading

[@bandit848]

I don't remember which aircraft it was but one of the American fighters in WWII had belts that were 9 yards long. This is where the expression "the whole 9 yards" comes from.

[@jamesfetherston1190]

The expression pre-dates WWII by several decades.

[@warlordofbritannia]

Coincidentally, “the whole 9 yards” is about the range of a matchlock pistol! 😂

[@doc_adams8506]

Track kills were far more common than catastrophic kills in WW2. One thing I would add are battle scenes where tanks are operating independent of infantry. One of the more strategic technological advances in WW2 was the placing of a phone on the backs of American tanks to better facilitate coordination between the infantry and armor on the Western Front.

[@gabriel4596]

Movies depicting more ancient history where Roman legionnaires, medieval soldiers or Napoleonic wars soldiers are all dressed identically to one another, like they came out of a factory line. In fact it was usually a mish-mash of clothes with only one or two defining items, depending of course on your wealth and rank.

[@antoinedoyen7452]

Yes...uniformes...that was around 1750 , not before

[@ubiergo1978]

Suprised by the lack of the most classic "Where is your ditch?" errors in movies...

[@markadams7046]

My dad, a Vietnam veteran, told of scene in the movie Rambo where comes up out of the water and fires an large automatic gun while holding the barrel of the gun. He said in real life, a guy would burn his hand doing that, not to mention the ammo having gotten soaking wet.

[@c3schwab1]

Huge pet peeve for me is the wrong rank insignia in particular with officers. Best example is in Dances with Wolves. In the first battle the commanding Union general has the rank of Lt General on his shoulder (3-stars). Only Grant held that rank. Other movies and shows do it too. Irritating because this is such a simple fix.

[@cragnamorra]

This. There's many inaccuracies which are understandable from a cinematic perspective (length, plot, etc), and might be knowingly committed for a reasonable purpose. But there's so many other "low hanging fruit" errors that can only be attributed to ignorance or indifference.

[@9999bigb]

Huge huge pet peeve of mine, too. I always point out inaccuracies in uniforms and how they are worn, where the flag patch on the shoulder is (often its too low and backwards) and many many more. It just takes a second of research to fix this lol.

[@bradwilson1855]

The most accurate portrayal of artillery was in Band of Brothers and yet they still had individual rounds impacting and walking towards them I was an artilleryman for 22 years and we always did everything possible to have every round in the first volley impact simultaneously. This was to catch as many of the enemy as possible standing up unprotected. All armies teach their men to hit the ground instantly when hit by artillery. If the rounds impact one at a time you will get the guys in the bursting radius of the first round but all of the rest will be prone and seeking shelter when the following rounds impact You will get the popcorn effect with follow on volleys because each gun crew is faster or slower reloading

[@jeffburnham6611]

In the movie 'Midway', they actually show the gun crews reloading the 40mm AA weapons on the ships. And aircraft carriers had a defensive ring of cruisers, AA cruisers, destroyers and even battleships around them, in addition to their own defensive weapons. Seeing AA bursts and gunfire from ships directed at attacking aircraft (normally 10-14), is totally believable.

[@HanOfGod13]

Bruce Willis got permanent hearing damage from filming Die Hard from shooting blanks with his pistol. The scene in under the conference table especially. 🙉

[@JDXTHEKID]

it's always a classic nitpick of every single military movie besides a very select few that they ALWAYS get something on the uniforms wrong, and it's glaringly noticeable sometimes as well if you were ever a service member. 😂😂

[@drs-xj3pb]

This is, of course, deliberate. Perhaps the best way, not noticeable to civilians (or most veterans, it must be said), is to get the display of decorations wrong -- ribbons out of order, that sot of thing.

[@timmadden3039]

My father was a WWII veteran in Europe and used to point out the inaccuracies (tanks don't usually explode like that, they shoot way too much). Growing up, I was annoyed with the use of more modern equipment. I think I was an adult before I read that tanks specific to WWII were rare or non-existent. My favorite anachronism is in 'Tora, Tora, Tora'". A large white cross can be seen on the hill on Oahu as the Japanese planes fly over the island on the way to Pearl Harbor. It was years before I found it that cross commemorates the lives lost in the attack. I guess the editors liked the shot enough to hope it wouldn't be noticed.

[@brianhall4182]

Yeah, heh. Spotting when the production used an M46 Patton instead of a Tiger is always fun. I remember watching an episode of Hogan's Heroes where a "German Tank" was really an M7 Priest. It's understandable though. German tanks were likely quite hard to come by. Though at least some movies went to the trouble of TRYING to make them look right, with fake turrets and whatnot rather than just painting a German cross on them. There's also the 1970's Midway movie where they use old war footage. You get Corsairs and Hellcats featured when they really shouldn't be.

[@timmadden3039]

@@brianhall4182 Oh, yeah, Midway with Charlton Heston and Henry Fonda. They did try to get the stuff right by using actual footage of air battles. It just didn't quite work. "Kelly's Heroes" does have a Tiger tank that at least looks like the actual tank. [Edit] I did a little reading and the Tigers were Russian T-34s mocked up to look like Tigers. I have to appreciate the effort.

[@matthewplascak2685]

That is awesome you went to conneaut Ohio for D-Day. I used to be in the reenactment but because of life I had to quit. I miss it sometimes.

[@LC-sc3en]

Everyone knows that the best way to disable a tank is have your teammates distract it while you sneak up behind, jump on top, and plant a plasma grenade on the section of armor that covers the ammunition cache or plasma battery. 😉

[@abbu.robinson]

I worked for a company that was contracted to supply IT support to the military, and we had to work in a base. When we would have phone or video conferences and then the soldiers would have target practices, that was it, the meeting was over. We were ~1km away from the ranges but having a company all firing together, it's loud

[@laurentfranco8075]

Another inaccuracy is often also the scale of a battle. For instance in Band Of Brothers we can see easy company attacking the town of Foy from their positions in the Bois Jacques. In the series it looks like they have to cross only about 400 yards of open ground. While in reality they practically had about a mile of open ground to cross. This is understandable due to film's technical limitations. A director will always try to get as much in one shot as possible. But this means that battles in movies are often considerably downscaled.

[@davido6170]

The Lost Battalion with Ricky Schroeder portrayed casualties by friendly artillery fire

[@antoinedoyen7452]

After the armistice of 1918, the Allied headquarters organized a shooting competition with the best artillery teams using the 75 mm French cannon. A rapid fire on a rolling fire test (salvoes of shells advancing every 10 meters.) 1) the gunners fired faster with the 75mm than an infantryman with a Lee Enfield or a Lebel 2) an American crew won :(

[@derpeek]

The T90 tanks do explode. Look at footage from Ukraine. A general misconception I saw in an episode of Qi. Was that men who are killed just drop down. The bullet just goes through the body. Not much energy is lost. But in movies the victim makes a dramatic "jump" of a few feet away. And music blasted out of helicopters during the Vietnam war.

[@josephvarno5623]

Only when hit from above by an anti-tank missile that touches off the stored magazine. Pops the turret right off. Getting drilled from the front, not so much.

[@lemons1559]

​@@josephvarno5623 if anything sets the ammo to cook off on a T-anything, it'll pop off like a jack in a box. That includes glowing hot pieces of spall induced by frontal penetration by APFSDS.

[@TheSaltyAdmiral]

I had never even heard about Verdun until I listened to George Carlin's Hardcore History about WW1, I was absolutely mind blown and have read as much as I can about it ever since.

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

Dan Carlin, but yes, his podcast is fantastic.

[@anathardayaldar]

I liked how on saving private ryan, they disable a tank's track but the turret is still in the fight.

[@johncarter101]

For me, it would also be the insane accuracy of certain weapons, especially in westerns or muskets in historical movies.

[@felipeviana2351]

Regarding aircrafts, I am always amazed by how their engineering is always based on such precise calculations. For instance, commercial airplanes are never painted black because the amount of pigment in black paint can mount up to the weight of 8 passengers, which spends more fuel and costs more. Now think about the balance about having an airplane that flies efficiently with the most possible autonomy, but at the same time can’t be completely defenseless in a dogfight. Think about how heavy ammunition is.

[@PeteOtton]

For naval guns 5 -6 in is about the point where you stop having the ability for sailors to chuck around a full round with its propellant. From 6 in up they tended to be two part, and with the battleship guns several packets of powder were needed to fire a shell. For ships, taking into account the ammunition was critical to keeping a ship sea worthy. I can only imagine how critical it would be for aircraft.

[@galesito1733]

One thing that always bugs the hell out of me with historical films is when characters can fire muskets from a moving horse with deadly accuracy.

[@LC-sc3en]

I always just pretend they are the most reckless and lucky sobs in the universe rather than having it be a thing of skill.

[@federicogiana]

@@LC-sc3en Well, movies love to give us such ridiculous shooting feats. In Sergio Leone's "A Few Dollars More" Clint Estwood's character draws his gun and shoots an apple down a tree into the hands of a child without even looking at it. And it's just the first example that crosses my mind.

[@jasonmcintosh3661]

One of my favorite mistakes in movies is portrayals of NORAD. My dad was in the Air Force and I got a chance to some of it (most is off limits to anyone without clearance) as a kid. No giant video-game stuff. Lots of maps and tables and phones. I'm sure it has been modernized since I was there in the early 80's, but people I have known that worked there always laugh at the films.

[@richardarriaga6271]

Reagan was told the displays in the War Games movie was more advanced than what NORAD actually had at the time.

[@CosmosJack]

I worked with a WW2 vet who had hearing loss from the Battle of the Bulge -- somehow his tank crew's supply of small arms ammo slid up against a hot exhaust pipe and went off like popcorn inside the tank with him in it.

[@ivane5110]

All fans of classic Westerns know the disappointment of first discovering the infinite ammo trope. It goes in phases: 1-being so into the action who has time to pay attention or care about bullet counts, 2-getting so ibvested in your cowboy hero that you actually sweat bullets (no pun intended) worrying they might be running out of ammo, 3-get even more worried, so you start counting shots, 4-thinking, with relief, you must've miscounted, 5-that day you do keep careful track and know that six-shooter just fired it's 7th, 8th or nth shot, 6-realizing it's happened yet again and is a semi-norm & losing the immersion, and 7-getting old enough that you could care less, you're just happy to see Festus, Little Joe, Paladin or John Wayne again.

[@DMTdreams016]

I was at the part where you were discussing how loud warfare is and you said reenactments, before you even said it, since I know you're in Ohio, I thought it would be cool if you mentioned the one in my hometown of Conneaut. And sure enough!! You said it!! So stoked lol one of my favorite events to go to up here. Probably the only time I've ever heard the name Conneaut spoken on the internet ever lol

[@5552-d8b]

Another cliche in movies is everyone clocks there gun to look badass before shooting. and I’m not saying it doesn’t happen but usually people load there weapon before going anywhere near the battlefield. Another trope in movies is the bad guys have stormtrooper accuracy while the main characters have sharpshooter accuracy. Another thing is constant CQC in movies like hand to hand combat but while that does happen it doesn’t happen a lot. Your more likely to shoot your enemy rather then go hand to hand combat. The only time CQC was slightly more of a thing was is trench raids in ww1 and banzai charges in ww2 in the pacific front. Again that’s if the soldier is lucky enough to even get any where near the defensive position. But even then it wasn’t that common. Even special forces say they rather stealth kill with a shot to the head rather then strangle or do CQC because it’s possible the other person can be skilled in CQC so in real life soldiers would rather be like Indiana Jones shooting that sword guy rather then doing the whole duel CQC stuff Another thing that a lot of movies don’t show is gun jamming unless it’s plot armor convenience also lack of friendly fire. Not saying all movies make this mistake. Another thing I saw in movies and in games is flamethrowers being used as a infantry weapon but in reality there only bunker, trench clearers and only lasted 7 seconds. Another thing I heard was flamethrowers don’t blow up if you shoot the tank. Another thing I noticed for dramatic effect in movies is the enemy or not important characters being bunched up with other soldiers to be one big target to be mown down. In real life soldiers are discouraged from bunching up into one big target but I have seen footage in ukraine of Russian conscripts bunching up and according to psychological studies bunching up is a survival instinct to be close to other people but while it’s true that sticking with soldiers is a good idea standing super close to them is an easy target and soldiers recommend having a distance from each other like 5 meters away from each other so soldiers don’t become one target or if a artillery lands.

[@vodyanoy2]

Speaking of Fury, you should do a full movie review of it. It would be very interesting to hear your perspective.

[@Xino6804]

Let not forget the tried and true showing of a person flying 5-10 feet in a general direction when they are hit by anything.

[@tigerqueen1112]

A series I think you, and a lot of people, will REALLY enjoy in extra history, policing London. I slept on it for a long while and it's one of my favorites. It tells you how they did 'policing' before and the twists and turns they had to do before they got the 1st official police force and it's honestly one of their best series and just naturally a bit funny (a long with the tulip mania one) please check that one out bc I would love to learn any more facts you have about the surrounding times or anything else you got!

[@WickedCool23]

“Artillery is the Queen of the battlefield” -Napoleon Bonaparte

[@antoinedoyen7452]

He was an artillery officier...😊

[@anderskorsback4104]

In the defence of war movies that overdo automatic fire by individual soldiers, real soldiers tend to do that too. Not because it's effective or efficient, but because combat is scary and fire discipline is hard to maintain in the heat of the moment. That's why the most important ability for any soldier is to be able to act tactically rather than act on survival instinct.

[@comusrules1244]

First time I saw a Civil War reenactment….WOW! The noise those canons made. And there were only about 5 there. Imagine 25 canons going off! Yes, and the smoke, just from those 5 canons (plus smoke from rifles), you couldn’t see anything!

[@pksegrin]

First, I just want to give a shoutout to the film '1917'. I watched it for the first time last week and was thoroughly impressed, especially with how they portrayed artillery with the massive craters and half-buried bodies and limbs. There are still many inaccuracies in cinema that would stand out. The infinite ammo stands out. In 'Joker' (2019), Arthur shot I think 8 times using a revolver that holds six. Depictions of shotguns also succumb to this. This isn't really a pet peeve perse, and I understand why this aspect of war isn't shown in film, but days and even weeks can go by during war where nothing happens. Modern militaries, especially Americans, started using the phrase "Groundhog Day" wherein they end up doing the exact same mundane repetitive things day after day. I haven't seen it, but I'm told 'Jarhead' represents this very well. Looking at war films set during ancient periods, many liberties were taken. '300' we all know is a highly sensationalized telling of the Battle of Thermopylae. I've read that the Persian body armor was so thin, that it wasn't uncommon for five guys to be impaled on a single Spartan spear. Basically the only accurate thing in '300' was its premise, but it was also a self-aware movie. Contrarily, despite its flaws, the movie 'Troy' (2004) had a rather accurate depiction of combat between Achilles and Hector of Troy. I know there is substantial debate on whether or not Achilles was even a real person and whether or if Homer based him on one soldier or an amalgamation of multiple. It's really hard to depict ancient warfare properly as we often run into the wall of the unknown.

[@terpman]

One inaccuracy I often see is soldiers, especially senior officers and NCOs, being portrayed as 10-15 years older than someone in their position would be in real life. Examples: 60+ year old colonels, 40 year old captains (o-3) and sergeants, even privates in their mid to late 20s. Obviously, this can depend on the specific war you're talking about (older wars had some crazy young guys in really high positions compared to today).

[@seltortatkin3853]

I was really confused why the thumbnail had a goofy picture of Simon "The KZbin Machine" Whistler, and then I realized you were covering a Sideprojects... project.

[@TheFool_0]

Tanks in movies are my biggest pet peeve. Fury really pissed me off with how they used the tiger. None of that scene made any sense. At the range they were at, the Sherman's 75mm would have been able to easily penetrate the tigers upper front plate. They didn't need to get behind it at all. Not to mention that the tank Fury was an EASY 8!! It and the upgraded 76mm! That thing could rip through a tiger at a much further distance. Then the tiger leaves its cover and charges the Shermans like wtf was the director thinking. Sorry I'm just very passionate and irritated with that movie. I love tanks.

[@antoniofranco333]

9:00 one movie that I liked showing a bit into hearing loss is black hawk down when one of the soldiers went full auto with a lmg next to his friends head while protecting them. Then tried saying something to the guy and he just yells. “WHAT”

[@JAEUFM]

I recall one YT video about artillery during WWI,...that England was running out of shells, and was desperate to increase production of them.

[@David-fm6go]

7:20 "God! It's a barren, featureless desert out there isn't it?"

[@barrythatcher9349]

Blackadder 😂😂😂😂😂

[@joyco6693]

I was literally watching this video yesterday and thought I’d love to hear your inputs ahah Keep up the good work dude 👍

[@sneakyfishiix8014]

So from what I've seen so far fact checking a statement said in this no a tanks turret is not held on by gravity at least the M4 Sherman's turret isn't.