# 5 Stupid War Myths Everyone Believes (Thanks To Movies)



## Brian G Turner (Aug 11, 2015)

Here's an interesting piece of criticism about how Hollywood handles battle scenes:
http://www.cracked.com/article_22750_5-stupid-war-myths-everyone-believes-thanks-to-movies.html

#5. "Ancient Battles Started With A Charge And Turned Into Melee Combat"
#4. "Muskets Turned Linear Warfare Into A Ridiculous Mass Suicide"
#3. "Pretty Much Everyone On The Losing Side Dies"
#2. "Everyone Is Actively Trying To Murder Each Other"
#1. "Enemy Rifles And Machine Guns Are The Real Danger; Artillery Is Just Background Noise"


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 11, 2015)

Brian Turner said:


> Enemy Rifles And Machine Guns Are The Real Danger; Artillery Is Just Background Noise


Creeping Barrage in WW I: Get it wrong and you kill nearly all your own troops!
Some rounds would fall short anyway ... Eeek!
Theory is that it takes out Machine Gun Nests, Barbed wire and Mines in front of your troops as they slowly advance. Or at least keeps enemy down in their shelter/trench/tunnels.



Brian Turner said:


> Muskets Turned Linear Warfare Into A Ridiculous Mass Suicide


Ummm... perhaps machine gun emplacements did for a while. Though if you have enough Zulus and not enough ammo the machine gun might not seem so good.

Muskets take so long to reload, hence I suppose assistants sometimes loading a 2nd musket? and multiple or at least alternate ranks. Canon are time consuming too?

A .303 Lee Enfield seemed very slow compared to SLR, and while faster than cranking a crossbow, might be slower than some archers with regular bows, long bow slower than the sort bow a mongol might use on horse back, but it would have poor range. Can't see how Muskets aren't very slow. Of course there was the foot cocked crossbow (but you'd not use that on a horse). I've  used .303 Len Enfield, SLR, a variety of bows, Bren, 2" mortar (slow enough), but not a crossbow of any kind, just read about them.
I think musket you had 4 operations?
1) Pour in powder.
2) push in small pad with big stick
3) put in ball/shot
4) push in pad with big stick to stop ball/shot falling out
Then you cock, prime and fire. Early ones had a sort of glowing fuse affair rather than flint striker.


Mostly books are better. Not dominated by need to have special effects and cinematic action. Hobbit, Prince Caspian (esp),  LOTR pretty mad compared to the books.

Don't write after playing FPS computer games or watching War films? 

EDIT


> obviously dudes aren't picking up heavy machine guns and mowing down entire armies, Rambo-style


Nobody tries to carry and fire a proper machine gun like WW1 Maxim or WWII Bren. 
a) barely possible for one person to carry far
b) feeding the ammo. Seriously eats it. 
Two people work a machine gun and it has legs for a good reason!


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 11, 2015)

I knew about horses were not just WWI, but WWII


			
				 Jacopo della Quercia  said:
			
		

> The Soviet Army had at least 3.5 million horses in service and deployed tens of thousands of mounted cavalrymen. They would have relied even more heavily on horse-drawn transport had the U.S. not played the role of shady wartime used car dealer. Now, you might expect as much from an army that famously didn't have enough guns for all its soldiers, but they weren't the only ones who relied heavily on horses.
> 
> The German "war machine" was actually less gears and sheet metal, more flesh and bone. When World War II began, horses outnumbered vehicles in the Wehrmacht by a good 3 to 1, and that figure only got worse as the war progressed and vehicles crapped out. When we think of the German army, we think of panzer and tiger tanks, but even the famous panzer armies had _15,000 more horses than motors_. And here you thought those fancy jackboots were just for style.


http://www.cracked.com/article_21091_5-bullsh**-facts-everyone-believes-about-wwii.html


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 12, 2015)

Interestingly,  many studies were done with regard to machine guns and the move the smaller squad-based units. Fire-teams consisting of four or fewer men were used to allow flexibility, autonomy and support of larger units(especially in urban environments). Studies have shown that willingness to fight is more influenced by a desire not to fail other members than anything else. You see this particular aspect harnessed by creating an _Esprit de Corps_ all the time nowadays in various organisations and businesses and not just the military.   

Also, the psychological damage of being subjected  to an  artillery barrage was profound on individual soldiers -  so a bit more than background noise I would think.


----------



## Susan Boulton (Aug 12, 2015)

Just a quick note on muskets. Two rows of men, one firing, one reloading, rate of fire expected from a British soldier (Waterloo) 3 - 4 shots per minute.

And one for a "smelly", Lee Enfield. Check information concerning rates of fire for the standing army circa 1914 (old contemptables ) Advancing Germans in September 1914 were at times convinced they were facing machine guns, but actually it was sustained rifle fire. 

More during WW1 were killed/injured by artillery fire than machine guns. But, due to the fact that the machine gun became a symbol for the "first industrial" war, and the fact it was used to horrifying effect on various sections of the advance, on the first day of the Somme, it has stuck in the nation's memory.


----------



## Temperance (Aug 12, 2015)

Number 2 is based on some rather dubious research and isn't actually based on US military reports rather a "study" by an ex-officer who refused to show anyone the background information he based his findings on. It's just one of those things that has become a "fact".

Number 5 is obviously written by someone whose only experiance of keeping formation is playing computer games or on a nice flat bit of concrete. Three to six feet between soldiers keeping formation (you probably can't even get a formation to stand still that close together on the average bit of wilderness much less move) can hardly be described a a close formation. And they sure as hell didn't "push their way down the field one step at a time". If the author had read any actual accounts it would be obvious.


----------



## KyleAW (Aug 12, 2015)

Watching this thread, very interesting.

Here is one that interested me for a while now, the true meaning of 'decimate'. Should it refer to the destruction of one/tenth or the more modern interpretation of near total destruction?


----------



## Temperance (Aug 12, 2015)

KyleAW said:


> Watching this thread, very interesting.
> 
> Here is one that interested me for a while now, the true meaning of 'decimate'. Should it refer to the destruction of one/tenth or the more modern interpretation of near total destruction?


 It's a tricky one.

Often the punishment involved those in the same tent killing one of their number and the size of tents varied throught the time, so in could be one in six, one in eight or one in ten. But one in six is the most often referred to tent size, just not in relation to decimation.

It mainly seems to be just one of those words like Century and Centurion that bears no relationship to the literal english translation.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 12, 2015)

KyleAW said:


> Should it refer to the destruction of one/tenth


Originally 1/10th as a severe punishment.
Now seems to apply to 1/10th surviving an attack


----------



## KyleAW (Aug 12, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Originally 1/10th as a severe punishment.
> Now seems to apply to 1/10th surviving an attack



Exactly , there is such a difference between the two versions, and they refer to the same area so it is not really possible to reconcile them. So which is 'right' in that case?


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 12, 2015)

@KyleAW 
A mistake to ignore common parlance and be pedantic. You end up drinking alone at a party.
Being right can be wrong.
The 1/10th as a severe punishment is the original meaning. Now it just means Majority killed.
c.f. Meaning of "gay", "gender", "awesome" (inspires awe), "Terrific" (creates terror), "ejaculated" (even in 1950s meant kind of shouting),  "cool".
Or "faggot" (a stick or mince item), "Rubber" (USA Eraser, a Rubber in USA means something else).

Language and description and expressions change meaning.


----------



## KyleAW (Aug 12, 2015)

Indeed I agree and I rarely drink alone don't worry . I take interest in discussion, not in being right


----------



## Venusian Broon (Aug 13, 2015)

While #3 generally didn't happen, it could - the Mongol invasion of Europe included them effectively wiping out a 60-80,000 strong Hungarian army at the battle of the Sajo river. (Or the battle of Mohl as it seems to also be known.) But many battles, ancient in particular, the vast bulk of the deaths were inflicted on the losing side as they tried to run away. Helped by incentives such as the Egyptian Pharaohs paying out bounty for the numbers of pairs of ears (and other bodily parts) of the enemy soldiers if they were in a particularly vindictive mood.


----------



## svalbard (Aug 13, 2015)

Venusian Broon said:


> While #3 generally didn't happen, it could - the Mongol invasion of Europe included them effectively wiping out a 60-80,000 strong Hungarian army at the battle of the Sajo river. (Or the battle of Mohl as it seems to also be known.) But many battles, ancient in particular, the vast bulk of the deaths were inflicted on the losing side as they tried to run away. Helped by incentives such as the Egyptian Pharaohs paying out bounty for the numbers of pairs of ears (and other bodily parts) of the enemy soldiers if they were in a particularly vindictive mood.



Not to forget Adrianople or Carrhae. Later battles such as Hastings and Towton were noted for their brutality. Although not too sure of the casualties I believe Edgehill in the English Civil War was particularly bloody. There was  term called 'push of pike' used in that war that sort of sums of the viciousness of certain fights.


----------



## Caledfwlch (Aug 20, 2015)

An experienced British "Redcoat" Company, using "Company Fire" around the time of the Napoleonic Wars would fling out a terrfying amount of fire with their muskets. Generally, disciplined British Troops could fire around 1-2 more shots a minute than any other nations, which tended to make a huge difference.

Napoleon's Columns tended to be very effective against most enemies, the huge mass of tightly packed men hammering into enemy positions, but British troops with their slightly higher rate of fire tended to make mincemeat of the columns.


----------



## KyleAW (Aug 20, 2015)

True, also the adoption of ranked fire also made a big difference. When the squad all hit a single column's rank would die, leaving few casualties. As the ranked fire system was adopted much larger casualties were subjected on the French.


----------



## Gramm838 (Aug 20, 2015)

Key false factor in movies:...nearly every shot hits its target.

Utter crap - its much harder to be accurate with a weapon, especially a pistol, than people realise. Not quite Stormtrooper level of misses, but close


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 20, 2015)

Gramm838 said:


> nearly every shot hits its target


Indeed, it's the other way round!
What was Vietnam? 57,000 US shots per target hit?


----------



## Vladd67 (Aug 20, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> I think musket you had 4 operations?
> 1) Pour in powder.
> 2) push in small pad with big stick
> 3) put in ball/shot
> ...


As an ex musketeer with the Sealed Knot I can tell you that you were missing some stages.
I am a little rusty but this was the drill
1) Open your pan
2) Charge your pan
3) Close your pan
4) Turn about your piece.
5) Charge your powder
6) Charge your shot
7) Place your wadding
8) Draw forth your scouring stick
9) reverse your scouring stick
10) Ram home your scouring stick with three goodly thrusts, (remembering of course to hold your scouring stick just with your fingertips in case of accidents
11) Remove your scouring stick
12) Replace your scouring stick, there may have been another reverse your scouring stick there first.
13) Remove any excess powder
14) Blow on your coals
15) Check your match (that is pull the trigger and check that the match in the serpentine hit the x in the middle of the pan lid)
16) Open your pan
17) prepare to fire
18) Fire!
Of course on the field we tended to add the powder then the wadding, (no shot of course ) tap the butt of the musket on the ground three times, open the pan, charge it , blow on the lit match held in our right hand, bring the musket up to fire and on the command fire dip the match into the pan. Unfortunately tap loading and dip firing were banned on health and safety grounds.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 20, 2015)

Vladd67 said:


> I can tell you that you were missing some stages


Oh, I was sure I was, but my point was even at most simplistic, it's not as fast as an archer. But an archer (esp. long bow) needs much more training, skill and strength? 

I did leave out all the unwieldy turning it around too!



> Then you cock, prime and fire. Early ones had a sort of glowing fuse affair rather than flint striker


I should have enumerated that on the list


----------



## Vladd67 (Aug 20, 2015)

True any idiot can pick up a musket and make it fire with little training, I should know I was that idiot 
Here is how it is done


----------



## Caledfwlch (Aug 21, 2015)

The Duke of Wellington actually looked into reforming some sort of War Bow Brigade, as War Bows had more range and accuracy, but was put off when the experts told him it would be 20+ years before they had people trained to the correct standard.


----------



## Vladd67 (Aug 21, 2015)

Didn't Stirling want the SAS issued with bows in the desert for taking out sentries quietly? I believe his request was denied.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Aug 21, 2015)

Vladd67 said:


> Didn't Stirling want the SAS issued with bows in the desert for taking out sentries quietly? I believe his request was denied.


 
Although, at least according to Wikipedia, Lieutenant Colonel 'Mad Jack' Churchill did kill a German with a Longbow in 1940. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill

He also always went into battle armed with a sword as well. Obviously hadn't heard or had chosen to ignore the maxim, never bring a knife to a gun fight.


----------



## Mirannan (Aug 21, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> @KyleAW
> A mistake to ignore common parlance and be pedantic. You end up drinking alone at a party.
> Being right can be wrong.
> The 1/10th as a severe punishment is the original meaning. Now it just means Majority killed.
> ...



Yup. Several comedians have mined this for comedy gold. One more of interest is that, apparently, Durex is a brand name for sticky tape a la Sellotape. The word "fag" is a cultural minefield, too.


----------



## WaylanderToo (Aug 21, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Indeed, it's the other way round!
> What was Vietnam? 57,000 US shots per target hit?




I was going to say that I suspect that that figure is waaaaaaaaaaaay off - but when you think about the helicopter gunships effectively 'mowing the lawn (jungle)' with their guns (think each gun had 4,000 rounds of ammo) maybe you're not that waaaaaaaaaaaay off


----------



## Caledfwlch (Aug 21, 2015)

The way the UK and the US are divided by the same language is worthy of a thread of its own.

"Decimate" get's misused dreadfully.
I remember witnessing a hysterical chat conversation during an online game of Medal of Honour.

Fool on opposing team "Blue Team, I'm gonna decimate y'all"
Wit on Blue Team "Wouldn't you be better off killing our entire team off, son?"
Fool "Eh???"
Wit "You said your going to Decimate us... you know, kill 1 in every 10 people....."
Fool "Eh????"

I was sniggering for hours after.


----------



## ralphkern (Oct 6, 2015)

Wasn't Mad Jack the chap who said words to the effect of 'If those yanks hadn't joined the war, we could have kept it going for another 10 years?' 

Notwithstanding the horrific losses that would have meant... one still has to give a wry smile at the gallows humor.


----------



## Caledfwlch (Oct 13, 2015)

Venusian Broon said:


> Although, at least according to Wikipedia, Lieutenant Colonel 'Mad Jack' Churchill did kill a German with a Longbow in 1940.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill
> 
> He also always went into battle armed with a sword as well. Obviously hadn't heard or had chosen to ignore the maxim, never bring a knife to a gun fight.



That's nothing!!!

Major Digby Tatham-Warter, a British Officer in WW2, used to famously take his Umbrella into Battle with him - during the Arnhem Bridge landings he was in charge of the Para's Second Parachute Brigade - one reason for carrying his Umbrella was he was useless at remembering Passwords and "felt that anyone who saw him with it would think that "only a bloody fool of an Englishman" would carry an umbrella into battle."  Before they landed at Arnhem, he also instructed his Paras in Napoleonic War era Bugle calls in case the Radio's went down, which seems a really good idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digby_Tatham-Warter


----------



## Kylara (Oct 13, 2015)

You stole my favourite bit of war trivia with the Germans thinking we had machine guns when we just had highly trained efficient rifle teams  now what am I supposed to come up with?


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 1, 2015)

Venusian Broon said:


> Although, at least according to Wikipedia, Lieutenant Colonel 'Mad Jack' Churchill did kill a German with a Longbow in 1940.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill
> 
> He also always went into battle armed with a sword as well. Obviously hadn't heard or had chosen to ignore the maxim, never bring a knife to a gun fight.



And he still lived to be 89.


----------



## Dave (Nov 1, 2015)

Gramm838 said:


> Key false factor in movies:...nearly every shot hits its target.


Just to add to what has been said, I was recently watching a film about a project to try to find the site of "The Battle of the Ford of the Biscuits" on the Arney River near Enniskillen. There is much dispute about the actual place but they discovered a hill using metal detectors with musket balls embedded in the turf everywhere. They said it was either the battlefield or a firing range, but I was astounded that there were so many musket balls. Now I see it isn't really that odd.


----------



## Jaxx (Jan 2, 2016)

Gramm838 said:


> Not quite Stormtrooper level of misses, but close



Brilliant. 

Loving this thread.


----------

