# Most Inaccurate War Film



## rogthedodge (May 15, 2007)

What's the most inaccurate (as opposed to unrealistic) film you've seen about warfare?

My starter for you would have to be 'Operation Burma' - I've never seen it but the following quote from Objective, Burma! (1945) gives a flavour of the reasons

"The movie was pulled from release and banned in Britain after heated protest from British veterans groups and the military establishment. 
As the Burma campaign was a predominantly British and Australian operation, the picture was taken as a national insult and highlighted the resentment that many felt was another example of Americans believing they won the war singlehandedly." Their words not mine! let's not start all that again!

Sounds like it just shaves U573 (or whatever it was called)

Must be others?


----------



## syscom3 (May 15, 2007)

The movie "Pearl Harbor" brought Hollywood up to a new level in inaccuracies.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 15, 2007)

My vote goes for Pearl Harbor and U-571 were the worst ever.


----------



## Negative Creep (May 15, 2007)

I'd have to go with Pearl as well. MkV Spitfires in the Battle of Britain, fighter pilot flying bombers, front mounted guns on a B-25 etc etc. Then there are the stereotypes; at best it's misguided, at worst downright insulting. The Dirty Dozen's (or was it the sequel?) use of a black guy in occupied Europe made me laugh as well. That's the only true war film that springs to mind, although there are lots of action films such as Rambo 2, but that's missing the point as they don't intend to be realistic, but fun


Edited to add

Just remembered Windtalkers. I enjoyed it as a film, but the amount of times Nic Cage ran forwards with a Tommy gun and killed 50 Japs was just dumb. Not to mention the massive body count - it's a wonder anyone survived the battles at all!


----------



## comiso90 (May 15, 2007)

It's difficult to judge anything made before 1960. 

There was little attempt at realism... it was all about lifting morale...

That being said, 'Gung Ho!': The Story of Carlson's Makin Island Raiders (1943) is a hoot and Wake Island (1942) was all progaganda

Vintage stock footage of long out-dated 1920s-era bi-planes creeps into the battle scenes on several occasions.

The Wake Island defenders were forced to surrender and spent the remainder of the war in captivity. They did not die fighting to the last man as the movie portrayed.


----------



## timshatz (May 15, 2007)

Pearl Harbor. Pathetic attempt at Political Correctness, Mass Marketing and a war movie. Actually, the War Movie idea came in dead last. The plot was horrible. Boy gets Girl, Boy goes off to fight for the RAF, Boy gets chop-girl thinks he is dead and ANOTHER boy gets girl (this chic gets around), Dead Boy comes back from Dead, too late, girl is knocked up-JAPS ATTACK PEARL HARBOR (finally, the only reason I was watching this chicken flick in the first place), Boys (plural) do outlandish things to save the day and not even get their hair mussed.....blah, blah, blah. 

Like I said before, I actually stopped listening to the dialogue and substituted my own, it was a much funnier movie. Beyond that, there are others:

-Flyboys (sorry to those on the board that liked it, flight scenes were cool)
-Battle of the Bulge (filmed in Spain and that's as close as it got to the truth)
-The Siege of Firebase Gloria- Potentially great but killed by lousy writing.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 15, 2007)

Pearl Harbor...


----------



## Bf109_g (May 15, 2007)

What about "Top Gun" guys??


----------



## Gnomey (May 15, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> My vote goes for Pearl Harbor and U-571 were the worst ever.



Yep, I would agree with those two, certainly the worst attempt Hollywood as done.


----------



## syscom3 (May 15, 2007)

Bf109_g said:


> What about "Top Gun" guys??



What was inaccurate about the F14's?


----------



## rogthedodge (May 15, 2007)

Never Seen Pearl Harbor - deliberately - but I'd love to see the Japanese-release version where they increased the love story but downplayed the war aspects !!


----------



## Bf109_g (May 15, 2007)

Syscom, 

I went on the Top Gun Movie and Aviation page, and found a whole list of inaccuracies and mistakes, i.e. the F-14 and MiG-28 could'nt have been that close when Maverick gave the pilot the middle finger...


----------



## Njaco (May 15, 2007)

How about "Battle of the Bulge"? German breakthrough on the plains of Sidi Barrani along with the largest tank battle since Kursk! It did happen in July, right?


----------



## syscom3 (May 15, 2007)

Bf109_g said:


> Syscom,
> 
> I went on the Top Gun Movie and Aviation page, and found a whole list of inaccuracies and mistakes, i.e. the F-14 and MiG-28 could'nt have been that close when Maverick gave the pilot the middle finger...



We all know that, and its relatively minor. But what part of the Topgun movie was so inaccurate, it deserves a place in history.


----------



## Bf109_g (May 15, 2007)

Sys, 

Sorry. Must have gone in over my head.


----------



## HealzDevo (May 15, 2007)

What about the battle scene between the planes? They didn't seem to use missiles but actually seemed to dog-fight between the F-14s and the MiG-28s. I don't know about you but I actually thought that modern combat was more likely to be long-range missile stuff rather than that close with the gun as more of an optional extra... This is in Top Gun.


----------



## 102first_hussars (May 16, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> What about the battle scene between the planes? They didn't seem to use missiles but actually seemed to dog-fight between the F-14s and the MiG-28s. I don't know about you but I actually thought that modern combat was more likely to be long-range missile stuff rather than that close with the gun as more of an optional extra... This is in Top Gun.



I always thought that the Soviet air tactics were to hug the american pilots because they had long range missiles


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> What was inaccurate about the F14's?



F-5 Tigers being called Mig-28s which also never exsisted.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> What about the battle scene between the planes? They didn't seem to use missiles but actually seemed to dog-fight between the F-14s and the MiG-28s. I don't know about you but I actually thought that modern combat was more likely to be long-range missile stuff rather than that close with the gun as more of an optional extra... This is in Top Gun.



Why do fighters including the F-14 have guns? So that they can use them in close combat. Just because it is unlikely does not mean it wont happen. There is nothing unrealistic about a modern fighter dogfight using cannons.


----------



## Njaco (May 16, 2007)

I believe it happened in the mid-80s gainst Libia. Old fashioned dogfight without missiles. Well, old fashioned because I think we shot them down in seconds but only with guns.


----------



## syscom3 (May 16, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> F-5 Tigers being called Mig-28s which also never exsisted.



So because the producers couldnt get Soviet fighters to use in the movie, it becomes inaccurate? 

At least on the F5's they used the right color of red to use on the stars.


----------



## comiso90 (May 16, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> F-5 Tigers being called Mig-28s which also never exsisted.



I don't see that as inaccurate. That is a realistic production decision. The false MiG moniker describes the faux MiG. It's obvious that they had to use actual jets. Would you prefer that they call the F-5's MiG 25's?

What alternatives would you offer? Which aggressor aircraft would you rather see? 

If the studios are confined to using actual aircraft I suppose the bad guys could be flying Cessna 210's!

"Look out Goose, you have a Cessna on your tail!"


----------



## Njaco (May 16, 2007)

"Hold him off, my slingshots not ready!"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> So because the producers couldnt get Soviet fighters to use in the movie, it becomes inaccurate?
> 
> At least on the F5's they used the right color of red to use on the stars.



No dont make this into something bigger than it is just because you like argueing.

You asked what was innacurate. I answered you by saying that Mig-28s never existed and for the fictional jet they used F-5s.

I never said the movie was that innacurate...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> I don't see that as inaccurate. That is a realistic production decision. The false MiG moniker describes the faux MiG. It's obvious that they had to use actual jets. Would you prefer that they call the F-5's MiG 25's?
> 
> What alternatives would you offer? Which aggressor aircraft would you rather see?
> 
> ...



Read my post above to syscom...


----------



## comiso90 (May 16, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Read my post above to syscom...



Symantics on the "accuracy"

I've heard many people scoff at the same facts that u pointed out.


----------



## Matt308 (May 16, 2007)

Njaco said:


> I believe it happened in the mid-80s gainst Libia. Old fashioned dogfight without missiles. Well, old fashioned because I think we shot them down in seconds but only with guns.




Not true. In both instances they were shot down with missiles. Two Su-22 Fitters hit with Sidewinders. And two MiG-23s hit with a Sparrow and the other with a Sidewinder.


----------



## Njaco (May 16, 2007)

ok, my faulty memory. I thought that it was close-in combat. I'll stay away from the modern stuff.  

I don't mind them trying to get it right. "The Blue Max" used converted bi-planes to at least "look" like DVIIs and SE 5s. Its not easy getting ahold of the real thing for movies including the USA.


----------



## Njaco (May 16, 2007)

Speaking of Russian aircraft and movies, was that a real Russian Helo and tank in the movie "The Beast" with George Dzunda and Jason patrick?


----------



## Matt308 (May 16, 2007)

Hmmm. Never heard of that one.


----------



## Matt308 (May 16, 2007)

Apparently an Aerospatiale SA.321 Super Frelon. Was the movie any good?


----------



## Cyrano (May 16, 2007)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> Symantics on the "accuracy"
> 
> I've heard many people scoff at the same facts that u pointed out.



Never said it was a bad movie...


----------



## Njaco (May 16, 2007)

Pretty good movie. Didn't go too heavy with Russian and Afghan sterotypes and had to throw in a political dig here and there but otherwise a good enjoyable war film. Matt, if you get a chance to see it don't pass it up. Not a bad way to spend an afternoon.


----------



## Cyrano (May 16, 2007)




----------



## syscom3 (May 16, 2007)

The tank commander in "The Beast" told his crew he was a Stalingrad veteran.

Somehow, the age of this charchter wouldnt have added up to the age in real life if that had happened.


----------



## timshatz (May 16, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> The tank commander in "The Beast" told his crew he was a Stalingrad veteran.
> 
> Somehow, the age of this charchter wouldnt have added up to the age in real life if that had happened.



Yeah, I remember doing the same thing. I came up with an age somewhere in the 55ish years old area. And that is if he were 14 at Stalingrad.


----------



## timshatz (May 16, 2007)

Cyrano said:


> 9th Company was pretty awful. As a war film it was sometimes enjoyable, but fighting scenes were just horrible. Mujahedeen fighters attack uphill against Russian 12.7mm gun emplacements without taking cover and shooting AK's without aiming a bit, a Russian slaughters half of them using a PKM with one hand...



We had Rambo, they get "The 9th Company". Both trying to refight and win the wars they lost. The Rambo series was pretty bad too.


----------



## rogthedodge (May 16, 2007)

FWIW 'First Blood' - the original rambo - book wasn't bad and concentrated on the PTSD aspects of the Vietnam experience, but then Hollywood / Stallone got involved.....

On the F-5's I'm fairly sure they were the aircraft flown by the USAF squadron who were used to mimic SovPac units tactics in training. They sported Russian colour schemes insignia - the film probably just borrowed this squadron.


----------



## Njaco (May 16, 2007)

> Yeah, I remember doing the same thing. I came up with an age somewhere in the 55ish years old area. And that is if he were 14 at Stalingrad.



If I remember, the tank commander character did say he was a kid working both sides, similar to the kid in the "Stalingrad" movie.


----------



## trackend (May 17, 2007)

Although not the worst or most inaccurate "In Which We Serve" contains one of the worst lines I 've heard, Sailor dieing in sick bay " I want my Captain"
My old man fell about laughing, he said he and his mates did the same thing when they saw it originally during the war. I cant repeat what he said about Noel Coward in the title roll.


----------



## comiso90 (May 17, 2007)

trackend said:


> " I want my Captain"


----------



## k9kiwi (May 17, 2007)

is that love at first sound bite.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (May 17, 2007)

Pearl Harbor for me, I found a contradictory during the movie. That scene where Ben Affleck tells his fellow pilots that " P-40s cannot outrun Zeros, so don't even try". Then in the next scene, I see Ben Affelck not only outrun a zero in a P-40, but also keep up with it in a climb. Also, how can two pilots, one who didn't have any combat experience, take down 7 Zeros which were probably flown by experienced airman. I know about the two real life pilots who scored some kills, ( sorry, I forgot their names), but I'm pretty sure not all of their kills were zeros.


----------



## Matt308 (May 17, 2007)

Or the B-25 crashing into the Jap forces at the end of the Dolittle Raid within feet of the other downed airmen. That was a "guffawer".


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (May 17, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Or the B-25 crashing into the Jap forces at the end of the Dolittle Raid within feet of the other downed airmen. That was a "guffawer".



Yeah man, like that. Also in the movie Ben Affleck survives when his spitfire hits the water. If that was real, wouldn't the aircraft had shattered in pieces and Affelck would be on the bottom on the channel?


----------



## armypilot (May 17, 2007)

In reference to the movie "The Beast", excellent movie. yes the helo was a Super Frelon with Vis Mods. The tank was an Israeli T-69. This tank utilized a Soviet T-55 hull and turret with a U.S. M-68 105mm main gun. And the T.C. stated he was a child during the battle of Stalingrad and they used him to help blow up Nazi tanks. If I remember correctly he stated they would lower him by rope from a bridge.


----------



## Dragontech64 (May 17, 2007)

*When it comes to inaccurate war films the list is VERY long and distinguished, however special mention needs to go to two films IMHO: Flyboys, both for technical gaffs, such as wrong a/c types for the year, plus a bad (and boring) romance sub-plot. Also high in the running and I noticed oft mentioned in the thread: Pearl Harbor, again for the badly done and boring romance sub-plot, in a pathetic attempt to make the movie "chick-friendly" perhaps? Then throw in the wrong types of fighters over England in BoB section, wrong type of P-40's over Pearl, and missing the other US fighters there that day (P-35; P-36 and the fact that an SBD shot down a Japanese plane that morning too), wrong model B-25 on the Tokyo Raid, plus the fact that they flew in solo, not in formation, and fighter pilots wouldn't be caught dead in a bomber if they could avoid it. I enjoyed Flyboys because it shows a part of history long neglected by Hollyweird, and did do true justice to the flying scenes and the bravery of "L'Escadrille American" Pearl HArbor just was too much to swallow.*


----------



## syscom3 (May 17, 2007)

Vassili Zaitzev said:


> Yeah man, like that. Also in the movie Ben Affleck survives when his spitfire hits the water. If that was real, wouldn't the aircraft had shattered in pieces and Affelck would be on the bottom on the channel?



Sometimes I wish Ben Afflick would disappear under the water.


----------



## Dragontech64 (May 18, 2007)

In replay to Vassili Zaitzev: Lt's Ken Taylor and George Welch are credited with between 6 and 10 (depending on reports cited and including "Probables") Japanese aircraft shot down between them, mostly Aichi B3A1 dive bombers, though at least one A6M2 was claimed as well. As for Afflack saying the P-40 couldn't outrun a Zero, true, above about 15,000 feet, but below that, it was faster and could out-dive a Zero any day. In all, 5 USAAF pilots scored victories that day for a total of 10 confirmed, 4 probable and 2 damaged. In a side note Welch went on to fly Airacobras and Lightnings in the SW Pacific and was sent home with malaria after 16 confirmed victories in late fall 1943. After the war as a civilian test pilot for the XF-86, he managed to exceed the speed of sound in a dive just days before Yeager did it in level flight in the X-1. Welch died 25 May 1953 when the F-100A he was test flying broke up.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (May 18, 2007)

Dragontech64 said:


> In replay to Vassili Zaitzev: Lt's Ken Taylor and George Welch are credited with between 6 and 10 (depending on reports cited and including "Probables") Japanese aircraft shot down between them, mostly Aichi B3A1 dive bombers, though at least one A6M2 was claimed as well. As for Afflack saying the P-40 couldn't outrun a Zero, true, above about 15,000 feet, but below that, it was faster and could out-dive a Zero any day. In all, 5 USAAF pilots scored victories that day for a total of 10 confirmed, 4 probable and 2 damaged. In a side note Welch went on to fly Airacobras and Lightnings in the SW Pacific and was sent home with malaria after 16 confirmed victories in late fall 1943. After the war as a civilian test pilot for the XF-86, he managed to exceed the speed of sound in a dive just days before Yeager did it in level flight in the X-1. Welch died 25 May 1953 when the F-100A he was test flying broke up.



Thanks man, I forgot those pilots names, although I saw their characters make an attack scene In Tora Tora Tora


----------



## ToughOmbre (May 18, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Sometimes I wish Ben Afflick would disappear under the water.



_*Pearl Harbor*_ can be described in one word...*Unwatchable!*


----------



## trackend (May 18, 2007)

I've never seen Pearl Harbour sounds like I never will either. 
I loved Tora Tora Tora and I didnt think it could be bettered thats why I have never bothered with PH .
Cant wait for the Dam busters I hope they dont depart to far from the truth and it will have to be good to better the original.


----------



## 102first_hussars (May 18, 2007)

I thought that old movie the Devils Brigade was pretty stupid


the battle scenes were too over the top and not factual


the begining where the canadians and americans are conflicting and fighting

never happened, in fact the Yanks and Canucks got along pretty good at the start


----------



## HealzDevo (May 20, 2007)

Okay, but still in that sort of thing, they have already been identified as enemies so you shoot them down before they get that close. The whole idea I thought of modern combat was to get that pilot before you had to dogfight them... In that sense then, I really thought that most of the modern usefulness of a cannon on a fighter, fighter/bomber was to be able to conduct ground attack. That is what I thought the cannon was mostly turned into, a ground-attack weapon...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 20, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> Okay, but still in that sort of thing, they have already been identified as enemies so you shoot them down before they get that close. The whole idea I thought of modern combat was to get that pilot before you had to dogfight them... In that sense then, I really thought that most of the modern usefulness of a cannon on a fighter, fighter/bomber was to be able to conduct ground attack. That is what I thought the cannon was mostly turned into, a ground-attack weapon...


Ahhhhh.........no.

There was doctrine written after the Vietnam War about the use of a gun on modern fighters and that's why you see them on the F-14, 15 and 16. A gun is your "knife" if you will and there were several gun kills during GW1.


----------



## HealzDevo (May 20, 2007)

Okay. I understand now. Just a probably common misconception caused by watching and finding numerous modern ground attack videos but very few ATA gunnery videos.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 21, 2007)

Or playing to many video games and thinking that it is reality...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 21, 2007)




----------

