WW2 Movie Inaccuracies

In this thread, I'll try to compile all the various types of weapons, equipment, and tactical military inaccuracies often made by unknowledgable filmmakers. They will be mainly from action sequences. Suggestions would be neat!

The only WW2 piece with minimal or almost no inaccuracies is Band of Brothers.

1. Too many M1 thompson/MP40 wielding US/German soldiers
2. Soldiers constantly firing from the hip, shooting prolonged unaimed bursts.
3. US soldiers have superlative accuracy and never have to reload. The Germans have abysmal accuracy and often get killed while they are reloading.
4. A general absence of M1 carbines, section level weapons (30 cal./MG42), rifle grenade launchers, bazooka/panzerfaust/panzershreck, mortars, heavier weapons, etc.
5. Soldiers seem to go to battle with minimal/missing gear rather than heavy burdened with backpacks, supplies, ammunition, water, etc.
6. The German soldier of 1944 is often depicted wearing 1939-1941 parade uniform with no camouflage coats, helmets, or smocks
7. Submachineguns have too much accuracy, range, and firepower. Gunning down five Germans with one burst is too common.
8. Regular German Army troops acting in place of the SS (historically)
9. Allied and German troops have no unit cohesion and fight like a disorganized rabble. The NCOs often have marginal value.
10. US troops all armed with thompsons and M1 garands. German Troops all armed with K98s and MP40s.
11. Tanks are nearly useless and barely fire their cannons and machineguns at infantry. They also advance far too close than they would, historically.
12. Infantrymen do not closely escort tanks.
13. The Germans rarely throw grenades and on the rare occasion that they do, it usely doesn't work. The American slays many germans with his grenades.
14. The extras playing the soldiers don't shoot or handle their weapons properly. This is particuarily noticable when they play Germans and work their bolt action rifles..
15. The extras, of course, do not move in squads and sections like WW2 soldiers did. Very often, there are no section supporting weapon, designated marksman, and grenade launcher even in an infantry section.

*more to come

*I originally wanted to put this thread in the movies section but I didn't want it to be ignored like my other threads there..

 

great thread!

i have notice that when american and german soldiers did battle,the germans lost 10 times more than the americans in every single battle. i would think to make it realistic that america should have lost more men in battles (band of brothers).

 

I would say it is more basic than that:

1. The troops are usually shaved. Unshaved to the point of having beards is more like it.

2. The troops bunch up far too much. I can understand this one due to the need for camera shots.

3. Not near enough grenades, grenade launchers, and other indirect fire weapons. For instance, you rarely see US 60mm mortar sections in action even though these are critical weapons in a company level fight.

4. The soldiers never dig in deep enough. This again likely has to do with photography and getting a good shot versus reality.

5. There is little of the real confusion and terror transmitted to the audience that is present in a firefight. SPR tried hard to give some of this but it is a poor substitute.

6. There are few random events. That is somebody drops stone cold dead from an explosion that occurs "over there." Or, someone survives charging a machinegun. These events are hard to show and characterize.

 

Another one:

1. Germans die instantly. All Americans die instantly expect for those that are central to the story...

2. Wrong vehicles used for the Germans- often repainted American vehicles. Mock up tanks that barely look like the real thing are used.

3. A general absence of artillery (or almost), air support, and mortar fire against ground targets.

4. Americans too often on foot. No armored personnel carriers, etc.

 

Wofly-i agree with the first statement- No injured germans!

Another one!
the american unifrom look very filmilar to how the germans wore in the real ww2 (very smart and attractive unifroms) which we all know that the all the allies (including america) unifroms was not crash hot, but the american's uniform look just as good as the germans uniform.,that's another mistake.

 

Segregation of the nations involved is my least fave, almost as if the area of operations were demarked into convenient lanes, so U.S. troops rarely co-operate with or even just bump into any unit from another allied nation.

This seems to get worse as films get more modern too, so Longest Day has just about everyone in it, Bridge Too Far does too, SPR just doesn't, BoB has a bunch of Paras in bushes and a barn, and as for seeing a Canadian portrayed in a film...

 

1. Germans portrayed as fools- During the final battle in SPR I very highly doubt that the Germans would have endlessly charged past an area were their comrades kept dieing(MG In window)
-I know that they wouldn't have their open SP-AT vehicles un escorted and all alone.
-That a Tiger commander would have left the church tower standing upon entry to the village

Also, really what is up with how many Germans were endlessly killed in idiotic ways compared to the Supermen-story characters?

 

Point taken, but is it about likelihood? You've a lost airborne soldier who could be with anyone.

In Longest Day there's a great scene involving a lost US soldier, a downed RAF pilot and a dead German. It's short but very powerful. Even on R&R SPR doesn't really touch on anything between the two nations, which is a great shame I think.

Oh I'm not suggesting that, more there were instances when allies overlapped and that, I think, would be and is, when it happens, fascinating in a film. It also helps to keep good relationships solid doesn't it? Let's us remember how unified we won, but divided we would likely have fallen and all that. It also shows how we can agree against our own grain, so like in Bridge Too Far, when the Yank is berating the Brits for just stopping short, when a yank commander would have likely pushed on most Brits would agree with that.

Simply I think it's about inclusion, I know that verges on the PC, but it's gutting to many not to see any of ours alongside yours fighting the good fight.

pip pip

 

Wolfy may I suggest you watch some more war films that are more than ten years old. There are many that are historically accurate. You just have to look further back than 1999. The British for example made some classic WW2 films.

No.2 Soldiers do fire unaimed shots and from the hip...Many American can be seen in Iraq holding his rifle above a wall doing a beruit unload.

No.5 Soldiers do go to war with minimal kit and when they go into battle they carry next to nothing.

No.9 When the wheel falls off the cart...trust me it looks like a disorganised rabble.

No.3 in your last post. That still is true today. Troops in Afghanistan sometimes find themselves without air or arty.

No.5 Troops were on their feet more than some people realise. For example the nearly 2,000 Para's were pulled out of Arnhem and around half of them walked or hitched lifts to Nijmegen due to a lack of transport to get them to rest areas after crossing the Rhine. I aslo read that some American Troopers did some serious walking during Market Garden. I forget the unit, I think it was the 101st. Anyway they walked to and from battle covering 30ish miles travelling back and forth from one battle to another within their AOR.


In SPR didn't they did run into some brits on or near the beach?

 

I would tend to disagree on your points here. The Germans in Normandy, and in the West in general often led offensive actions where panzers were present unaccompanied. Wittmann at Villers Brocage is a classic example. Three unescorted Tigers and a Pz IV entered that town without support or specific knowledge of their opponets and proceeded to shoot up the place until all four vehicles were lost. There are lots of examples of this sort of behavior by the the Germans late in the war.
I would point to two primary reasons for it: The first is the Germans learned the wrong lessons fighting on the Eastern front and then applied these lessons to their operations in the West with disasterous results. The second is that all-too-often the German panzer units simply acted too aggressively and left their support behind rather than act in a coordinated fashion.

 

TA, I was under the impression that, besides for rare actions like Villers, etc., that the Panzer units in the West mid- 1944 consistently moved around with mechanized infantry escorts on armored halftracks. The halftracks and armored cars of their armored reconnaissance battalion generally preceded the Panzers.

However, I am aware that German Recon/ Panzer coordination was poor in the Panzer brigades and in the Panzer divisions in late 1944 due to lack of full training among raw recruits and decimated command nuclei.

 

A little creative license is good. How boring would a WW2 movie be if all it had were formations, inspections, company reports and weapons maintenance?

 

Quite right, too.....now, here's a trailer for a real classic which is 100% accurate in every respect.....

YouTube - Where Eagles Dare - 1968 - Trailer [ War film ]


....isn't it....?

 

Good call....that's even a joint operation.

 

Exactly.

 

After the Normandy invasion the whole German Army was in 'Ruckmarsh' heading towards the Seine at a rather rapid rate of knots and pretty much in disarray. In the main the movemnet of units especially Panzers was resticted to night moves due to superior allied air.

Cheers

 

You are looking at this in completely the wrong way...and I do it too. I constantly point out how they mess up the medals and ribbons, and my family gets annoyed with me. Most of the world isn't looking at a WWII film as a historically accurate reenactment of the war....it's a movie, i.e. an entertainment venue. Most people don't care of M1 Garands and Thompsons are over bearing in their numbers....they want action, good characters, bad characters, climactic fight and good triumphing over evil. If you wanted to accuratly depict the actual conditions of WWII your movie would be 6 hours long with 25 minutes worth of action, a 200 million dollar production cost, and 50 million dollars in box office sales.

 

In a lot of war movies, the directors have to insert some lame incident so that the "non-military veteran" viewing audience will understand what is going on or recognize the importance in the scene. For example, soldiers bunching up on the move across a field, then getting cut down like grass from a hidden machine gun position. Now anyone who has been in the infantry knows not to bunch up, or go blundering across an open area as if on parade. Another good example is in "Saving Private Ryan", the scene in the first French village the patrol comes to when it is raining, and they make contact with the 101st on the edge of town. They have no commo with other units, and have to use runners to get messages relayed. One paratrooper gets hit and goes down, and as he is struggling to get up, the Germans understandably keep firing at him to keep the message from being relayed. One of the Rangers (the Vin Diesel charactor I think) asks the Captain (Tom Hanks) why the Germans did this, and Hanks replies that the Germans know he's a commo runner and that "we'd do the same thing." I'm sure the weenies in the audience just gasped and said to themselves "not OUR boys" or something like that, but oh yes, OUR boys would too. It's a matter of survival on the battlefield, and most of the movie going public these days does not have the inkling of what really goes on outside of their sheltered lives. Just my opinion, of course.

 

How many examples would you like?

Singling (Lehr)
The "Twin villages" Kinnkelt-Rocherath Ardennes (12th SS)
Tilly (Normandy) (Lehr)
Manhay Ardennes (2nd SS)
The Frature Barracks crossroads Ardennes (2nd SS)

There are dozens that fit the bill. No reconnissance. No infantry or artillery support. Just panzers charging headlong into the Allied positions.