Most Inaccurate War Film

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

rogthedodge

Airman 1st Class
155
0
May 9, 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?
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 !!:confused: :confused:
 
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...
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back