discussion Historical innacuracies that get up your nose.

[Guest]

My pet inaccuracy hate is different. When people who should know better report like "This powerstation has an output of 2 GW per year". Its like saying "This car has a power of 40 HP per day". This means that it has a power output of 280 HP per week! Or "This motor has a power of 120 KW per minute/day/week. Grrrr!

 

[flyjoe180]

To be fair Laurie, 'River Plate' refers to the large estuary down which Graf Spee escaped and was subsequently scuttled. The estuary lends its name to the Battle. Much in the same way as the First World War Battle of the Falkands did not take place within the islands but to the east and north east of the island group.

 

[Alan 45]

The problem is History is written by people. As Winston S Churchill expounded "History will be kind to me as I intend to write it".The problem is you read one book, as I have recently, Len Deighton "Blood Sweat & Tears ". Now I am reading "Al_Alemein revisited. I recognise in each almost word for word some of the detail. But were did that come from lifted probably from another history of the WW11. So a mistake or a spot of speculation soon becomes absolute to be carried thro by the next writer on that part of history.

Having been through that war as a child and children just lap all knowledge up into huge bundles, there fore ever, I am amazed to read some of the rubbish about what it was like in England at that time. Written by people who where not born until well after the event.

Films also, as has been illustrated above, perpetuate the inaccuracies. The film the "Battle of the River Plate" is littered with inaccuracies. Even the title is incorrect as the battle took place miles away.

My pet hate. Historians. These precious comments as though they were there. The would have done this. They would have been doing this at the time. They would have thought ---- Mostly speculation.

Laurie

That's the problem with history Laurie historians always talk in absolutes, they don't use the words could have or in theory, factual events they can be true to but the specific they can't.

 

[eddiesolo]

One of my favourite films is The Cruel Sea, have a very old copy of the book and love reading that, very, very gritty for the day. Although you get that British 'stiff-upper-lip' theme the haunting humanity shines through. Of course another is Ice Cold In Alex, wonderful film and of course the star 'Katy' the Austin KY2 ambulance holds a special place for me as my Grandfather was a Medic in Africa and drove one of those. Although there are errors in this film, the Germans are using American M3 half-tracks, there are post war Landies in the background at the end of the film.

Si

 

[Guest]

American Sherman's as panzers in most 60's and 70's war movies half tracks as well does my Swede in.

The whole dog fight between the battle ships in pearl harbour if I am correct not sure the Americans got any planes in the air during the attack oh and the line " hey guys I think world war two just started makes me want to do violent things to my tv.

Paul

 

[Dave W]

I watched 'The Hunt for Red October' just before Xmas.I found it quite an enjoyable film up to the point where another Russian sub that has been ordered to destroy Sean Connery and his Sub fires a torpedo.We then have an agonising (!) wait till Sean orders a last second manoeuvre and of course the torpedo misses.This ain't no ordinary torpedo though.Some American sub commander whose managed to leave his boat and board Sean's (all under water!) then orders a series of manoeuvres that guides this torpedo back towards the Russian that fired it in the first place and blows them up!.At that point I turned it off.Now I was in the RAF,not the Navy.But I'm pretty sure submarines are not capable of the sort of under water aerobatics needed to carry out the manoeuvres seen in that film!.And that torpedo must have had a large fuel tank strapped to it to run for so long.

 

[Guest]

Have you guys seen the Airfix Battle of Britain Airfield set? It has a bomber bowser which was commissioned after the BoB together with a Spitfire??????????? How does that make any sense?

 

[BarryW]

I watched 'The Hunt for Red October' just before Xmas.I found it quite an enjoyable film up to the point where another Russian sub that has been ordered to destroy Sean Connery and his Sub fires a torpedo.We then have an agonising (!) wait till Sean orders a last second manoeuvre and of course the torpedo misses.This ain't no ordinary torpedo though.Some American sub commander whose managed to leave his boat and board Sean's (all under water!) then orders a series of manoeuvres that guides this torpedo back towards the Russian that fired it in the first place and blows them up!.At that point I turned it off.Now I was in the RAF,not the Navy.But I'm pretty sure submarines are not capable of the sort of under water aerobatics needed to carry out the manoeuvres seen in that film!.And that torpedo must have had a large fuel tank strapped to it to run for so long.

The book is far better than the film and, unlike the film the Royal Navy play a large part in the story. I enjoyed the film though. Tom Clancy, the writer, died a few months ago, a sad loss and an end to a great series of books of which I am currently reading the last one in the series, Command Authority.

Over to the thread - yes I get a bit peed off with inaccuracies but we must remember they are just entertainment and some leeway should be allowed the film-makers. What I cannot forgive is the Americans taking the credit for what the Brits did. I don't care if its Errol Flynn the Yanks were not in Burma at that time - and so on.....

 

[Guest]

Yes you are right Barry the book is a real cracker. Nice thing about books is that you live as the characters they stimulate the imagination. A film has little chance of doing that except in rare instances. Scot of the Antarctic did that in many places very brooding type film.

Cruel Sea Si as a great book to read. May be fiction but Nicholas Monserratt served in the Royal Navy on Convoy duty and ended in charge of a Frigate so fiction it may be but drawn in fact from his experiences. His description of the mighty seas which seemed to me to be more of a menace in these tiny boats Corvets & Frigates, has you living through it.

Laurie

 

[dave]

I can live with the inaccuracies in films, with the wrong vehicles used etc.. But what really gets my goat is when they get it wrong in the news. Where they say the army put tanks in the streets and proceed to show video of APCs, or a naval destroyer seized a vessel and it was a fishery protection vessel.

 

[stona]

One of my favourite films is The Cruel Sea....... another is Ice Cold In Alex,Si

Great films and there you touch on another point. They are both great films that happen to be set in wartime making them first good films and secondly good war films.

A film like Red Tails, which I mentioned previously, is just a bad film. All the fancy CGI and aeroplanes in the world, along with a wartime setting cannot redeem it.

Many historians regurgitate almost word for word official histories even when they have been contradicted, often by the men in command at the time. This leads to myths that will not go away. One of my most annoying is that 'the RAF was stronger at the end of the BoB than the beginning',first published in a wartime pamphlet/history of the battle (Battle of Britain, HMSO ) and subsequently repeated by historians who should know better. It was a view which Dowding went out of his way to contradict.

Another one in the program yesterday was that Duxford's 'Big Wing' delivered a 'hammer blow' to the Luftwaffe. The facts are that the Wing was ordered on 32 occasions. 9 times it failed to form up at all. Only 7 times did it actually engage in combat and only once did Bader and his men get to the attackers before other defending units. On that one occasion they shot down 8 bombers, not the 57 they claimed.

The Wing absorbed 5 squadrons from the relatively weak 12 Group and resulted in a shortage of fighter cover for important targets in the Midlands and East Anglia. It's hardly surprising that Dowding was consistently opposed to its use.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Neil]

......I share your pain on many of the others, though I do like Zulu, just to see Michael Caine doing posh

Cheers

Steve

What! Next you'll be saying he didn't actually say "Don't you, chuck, that bloody spear"!

Battle of the Bulge - shoddy all the way through - good movie but complete pants in the history research!

 

[Ian M]

Amd all of the above is why the films I enjoy most are CGI cartoons. LOL

There are though some films that you are quite happy watching and some thing catches your eye and you think that is soooo wrong.

Ian M

 

[Dave W]

I'm currently watching Pearl harbour.Just got to the bit where The Yanks fighting in the Battle of Britain with the Eagle squadron.Hes just been hit at low level above the sea.Theres oil all over the windscreen and a fire in the cockpit.Of course, the canopy won't open.But he still has time to draw his revolver,shoot a few holes in the canopy,then smash his way through the canopy with his elbows.Dont you just love these films?!.

 

[eddiesolo]

And after all that he actually manages to get out and is picked up and helps to save the day later on...yeah!

As I have said, we have to remember that they are films and such should never be viewed as accurate for information, saying that some documentaries can be a bit iffy.

Si

 

[Alan 45]

Thing is my kids school is showing films like pearl harbour and saving private Ryan to teach history the mind boggles

 

[eddiesolo]

Thing is my kids school is showing films like pearl harbour and saving private Ryan to teach history the mind boggles

Next thing is kids will believe that the Simpsons are real etc etc. From a standpoint of showing what war is and certain tragic consequences relating to loved ones, friendships, home life etc they can be an aid, especially the new wave of war films that show us the pain and hurt and more emotion-war is final act when man becomes a savage. But from a historic point of view children should be told that various pieces are fiction, or items couldn't be sourced etc and not to take any items should as read that this what they used etc.

Si

 

[Gern]

Thing is my kids school is showing films like pearl harbour and saving private Ryan to teach history the mind boggles

Hadn't you heard Alan? Education now is supposed to be 'fun'. We can't upset the little darlings by making them sit down and learn a load of facts can we?

Gern

 

[Alan 45]

Hadn't you heard Alan? Education now is supposed to be 'fun'. We can't upset the little darlings by making them sit down and learn a load of facts can we?Gern

That is exactly what I was told at parents evening when I asked if it was true , I tried to point out it was a bad idea due to it being entertainment and not true fact , to which the reply was well it gets the kids interested in history !

I was just dumb struck lol

 

[Alan 45]

Next thing is kids will believe that the Simpsons are real etc etc. From a standpoint of showing what war is and certain tragic consequences relating to loved ones, friendships, home life etc they can be an aid, especially the new wave of war films that show us the pain and hurt and more emotion-war is final act when man becomes a savage. But from a historic point of view children should be told that various pieces are fiction, or items couldn't be sourced etc and not to take any items should as read that this what they used etc.Si

I agree mate but kids are impressionable and they will believe that pilots could shoot there way out of a burning cockpit and that submarines could act lite fighter planes underwater