Lock and load...

I used to like the Gunny, till he went over to the dark side (GLock):rolleyes:

I could give the early History Channel a pass on some things, like if they get a rare, little known, obscure detail wrong. Trouble is, when they do mention some little known fact, they usually get it right. What they get wrong are common, well known things that anyone even remotely interested in the subject already knows, or can easily find out.

My personal gripe is using the wrong footage, as filler. Tell me about the Battle of the Bulge, cool. DO it showing me German Panzer rolling across French fields in 1940 (clearly evident from the type of tanks) NOT COOL.

Now, I fully realize that for a lot of the specific times and places footage simply doesn't exist, or is very limited, but come on, they could, and should do better with things like that.

And that was before the "History Channel" ran out of history and began using the crap stuff about swampers or loggers, or even Nazi UFOs to fill time slots.

They should rename it "Channel with some History".
 
Technically, couldn't the 1903 Springfield be considered "in service" for a longer period than the M-16?
It was adopted in 1903 and was used all the way up to Vietnam.

As far as the History Channel, I enjoy most of their shows, but take the information they provide with a grain of salt.
 
Thanks for starting this thread. It is disturbing that things presented as FACT in places that have credibility (or you would expect to have credibility) are wrong.

I believe there is such a rush to produce books, videos etc and there is such an appetite for this stuff that ‘research’ is not being done, corrections are not being made and if we are not careful these mistakes may soon be taken for fact.

I read a book about the Thompson submachine gun and liked it and got some good information out of it but then on Amazon in the comment section I found someone bringing out several serious mistakes with the book. Some could easily be checked and sure enough the book was wrong. But this book is out there and could easily be used as a reference and someday it might be taken as gospel.

http://www.amazon.com/Tommy-Gun-Gen...UTF8&qid=1397068571&sr=1-1&keywords=tommy+gun

It’s irritating, disturbing and maybe (I admit this might be a bit of a stretch) dangerous to have so many incorrect ‘facts’ running around out there.

P.S. What was the Midway documentary you saw?

There seem to be a lot of books being written about WWII now and I really do wonder where these folks are getting their information and who is ‘keeping them honest’.
 
I find all examples such as presented in this thread to be equally unacceptable. Error and false-hoods should not be presented as fact, particularly by sources with perceived legitimacy, and there's a major problem when they are.
 
Some of the people on this board will literally lose their minds if someone dares say clip instead of magazine.
That is sure true.
Just write two words together

45 Long Colt

And if I see one more SBD Dauntless diving to attack Pearl harbor I’m going to pull out the little hair I have left.:mad:
 
Last edited:
I'm actually working on a 1/48 scale SBD right now! :D

There is some hope on the horizon, at least for getting "close" to correct footage. CGI

CGI allows for decent recreation of events where actual footage doesn't exist. HOWEVER, they can, and do screw up CGI too.
 
"And if I see one more SBD Dauntless diving to attack Pearl harbor I’m going to pull out the little hair I have left."

Those images were filmed by the US Navy not long after the attacks to use in propaganda films as part of the war effort.

They didn't exactly shoot a lot of "on the spot" film during the actual attack, and much of what the Japanese shot went down at the battle of Midway.

Some US film was shot during the battle (the Arizona exploding), as well as this bit: http://www.navyhistory.org/2011/12/rare-pearl-harbor-attack-footage/

For whatever reason, the Japanese didn't think to offload most of the film that they took during the attack.

Much of what has appeared over the years was taken by individuals with their own personal cameras and managed to survive that way.

Much of the film that did survive came from the Shokaku and Zuikaku, both of which were forced back to the home islands for extended periods after the Battle of the Coral Sea.
 
"Technically, couldn't the 1903 Springfield be considered "in service" for a longer period than the M-16?"

One could say that the Trapdoor Springfield was "in service" even longer then because they Navy used them as line throwing guns into the 1960s.

Gunny was obviously talking in context of the gun being the military's primary service arm so in both cases, no. Neither the Trapdoor nor the Garand were the primary service arm even though their uses continued far past the time when they were replaced.
 
Those images were filmed by the US Navy not long after the attacks to use in propaganda films as part of the war effort.
I agree with that Mike, but to use the one airplane that was most responsible for stopping the Japanese advance in the Pacific, the one that knocked out the pride of the Japanese fleet, 4 flattops. To use it as a Japanese plane attacking the Arizona is just BAD CARMA.
I’m surprised we haven’t seen a Mig 15 as the top American jet fighter of the Korean war.
 
Ermy presents himself as an authority on the subject. He's been doing that for years. He actually does have some knowledge on the subject. He's a gun owner, he's a gun users, he's a supporter of the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

It doesn't follow that because Ermey is a gun owner, user, and fan of the 2nd, that he has some knowledge of the history of firearms.

Even his military experience doesn't guarantee expertise beyond use and maintenance of the weapons he trained with.

Face it, TV and expertise just don't get along.
 
TV shows about firearms have significantly reduced my ability to enjoy "informative" TV shows.

I so commonly see glaring errors in the shows about firearms (a topic about which I have sufficient knowledge to spot the errors) that I have to assume that there are similarly glaring and common errors in shows about other topics.
 
'I agree with that Mike, but to use the one airplane that was most responsible for stopping the Japanese advance in the Pacific, the one that knocked out the pride of the Japanese fleet, 4 flattops. To use it as a Japanese plane attacking the Arizona is just BAD CARMA.'

Except, when those images were filmed, the SBD pretty much had not sunk a thing. Those images were, IIRC, filmed in January or February 1942, and the SBD's heroics came later in the war.

So, in fact, using the Dauntless as an ersatz Val/Kate was EXCELLENT Karma.

And more than a little bit of revenge.
 
Once again, Buzz, Ermy presents himself as an authority.

The History Channel presents him as an authority.

He's not held up to be a talking head narrator like Edward Herman.

When one claims, and is advertised to be, an authority on a subject, there's a duty to make sure what's spewing from your mouth is in fact, authoritative, ESPECIALLY when it's extremely simplistic stuff that's wrong.

The problem is, in this case Ermy has a serious case of homerism, and his wild-eyed worship gets in the way.
 
"TV shows about firearms have significantly reduced my ability to enjoy "informative" TV shows.

I so commonly see glaring errors in the shows about firearms (a topic about which I have sufficient knowledge to spot the errors) that I have to assume that there are similarly glaring and common errors in shows about other topics. "


Yes, John, but how many of those shows are being hosted and presented by someone who is supposedly an AUTHORITY! on the subject?

For Christ's sake, how many times have they had real authorities like the guy from the museum at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, or Phil Schreier from the National Firearms Museum?

How difficult would it have been to have the material vetted by a TRUE authority on the subject matter?

They didn't need to, though, as they apparently had the Gunny's say so, and everyone knows that's he's as authoritative as Chuck Norris is tough.
 
And then there are the examples of when things are not "wrong" but just aren't "right.

Tales of the Gun, American military firearms episode, they show some "new in the crate" M1 Carbines, BARs, and others, but when the guy is holding a 1911A1, and explaining about it, the gun in his hands is not the military 1911A1, its a commercial Govt model, IIRC, with target sights!

I did like the Lock & Load episode where the Japanese MG bit the Gunny, drawing blood! Still going after (ex) marines, gotta admire the Bushido spirit in that old gun! :rolleyes:
 
Yes, John, but how many of those shows are being hosted and presented by someone who is supposedly an AUTHORITY! on the subject?
Click to expand...
A few of them are, most aren't. I wasn't really speaking to or against your argument, just making a peripherally related point.
 
"I'm not saying your wrong to be outraged; I'm saying you're late to the party. "

Well this is MY party, dammit, and I'll throw it any way I want to! :p
 
Originally posted by {b] Mike Irwin:

Ermy presents himself as an authority on the subject. He's been doing that for years. He actually does have some knowledge on the subject. He's a gun owner, he's a gun users, he's a supporter of the Second Amendment.

That's an IMPORTANT CONCEPT in all of this, folks.

When our own people can't even get the basics correct, what right do we have to complain about the other side screwing it up?
Click to expand...


I gotta agree....because it's presented as fact, and is actually far from it, is why it's so frustrating. Gonna make things up as you go along, you belong on the Disney Channel.

Oringinally posted by 44AMP:

I did like the Lock & Load episode where the Japanese MG bit the Gunny, drawing blood!
Click to expand...


Seems I remember an episode where he hit himself in the head with the hammer of a recoiling magnum revolver. For the rest of the episode he wore his hat pulled down to the tops of his Bushy eyebrows to cover the wound.


Comes down to, if you are respresenting something as fact, it should be fact, otherwise it is an opinion or fiction and should be represented as such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top