Myths about the war, in which most believe thanks to Hollywood - VIDEO PDF Print E-mail
Tuesday, 18 August 2015 14:35
Even if you have never been in the military, you probably think you can define that in war movies shown incorrectly. Of course, the Spartans could not go into battle wearing only loincloths and capes, and, obviously, no one picks up the heavy machine guns and mows whole army style Rambo. But, if you really try to grasp, what Hollywood movies about the war are wrong, you will find that the answer is simple - everything. Even those things that at first glance look authentic. Here are the basics of the more common myths. "The ancient battle began with curses, which are then passed into the fray" Where you might see it: "The Return of the King," "Braveheart", "300", "300: Rise of an Empire," "King Arthur" and many other films in this genre. How it looks on the screen. The two armies lined up on the battlefield, facing each other. Commanders give the appropriate order, and the two begin a disciplined army showered insults to each other for about a minute. At this point, more or less organized system falls apart, and the soldiers shouting at each other rushing to join the fight in the style of the characters of the film "Braveheart." Battle immediately turns into a fight "with someone who wants to", and it allows the main characters to show us the superiority of their sharpened attacks on random extras in slow-mo. At some point, the hero inevitably sees the main villain, or the leader of the enemy, then it is usually just follows him through the epicenter of the battle, killing the path of a couple, ten ... enemies. But really ... Of course, some people are just so brave and fought. Or rather, I tried to. But none of them did not know because they were killed at the first attempt. The reason that the troops of the ancient Macedonians and Romans usually won less organized peoples (eg, Celtic) is not that their soldiers were masters of sword fighting. They won because their troops did not violate professional organized structure, and in particular to avoid abuse in the battle. Roman well curb and disciplined troops lined up in rows and step pressed the enemy. This is shown in the first minute of the fight in the movie "300", and the footage is surprisingly accurate ... It is tightly closed on all sides Protected education was a kind of tank that allows you to promote the battlefield and kill all the javelins, who resisted. Before the advent of firearms almost every victorious army had its order of construction, which provides strategic more successful than your opponent. Even the Vikings, became a symbol of the indomitable berserker rage, typically engage in, building a wall of their shields. In general, violation of order and joining the individual match simply could not happen if the soldiers knew what they were doing. The fact is that the battle side by side in close order and in such close proximity to the enemy, that smell them (due to the lack of deodorant), left not much room to dance, waving the sword around you. Thus, especially in the era of dominance of Greece and Rome, the battle between the legions of hoplites, or basically is to find out which party is better able to sustain their operation and be able to push back the enemy. In other words, for the participants and observers of battle, the battle did not seem as exciting as it seems in the cinemas. Yes, every battle began with a proposal to hold a spectacular battle one-on-one, similar to what is shown in movies today, to show who is better. But few know that the army succumbed to this temptation, invariably lost. We also know that centuries later the troops were trying to do the same during use of muskets, lining up on the battlefield for slaughter in bright uniforms before the smarter enemies sniping. In other words ... "The invention of muskets led to the fact that the use of linear tactics turned into a mass suicide" Where you might see it: "The Patriot," "The Last of the Mohicans," "Barry Lyndon", "Sharp" in any other film about the Napoleonic wars or wars of the XVIII century as a whole. Does not it seem foolish lining up to make a single salvo? Yes, it's silly, especially if the opponent decided to take to strengthen or just hide behind a rock. Imagine the scene - magnificently dressed officers in powdered wigs look out for each other from afar, while the ranks of men in funny hats and defiantly bright clothes walked slowly toward each other. Each side makes a graceful pair of volleys to destroy more enemies. After that they go to a bayonet attack and begin to kill each other thoUSAnds. It was not a sign of intelligence and a thought-out strategy, but by golly, that's how wars were fought in the good old days, back when they were gentlemen. But really ... It is unlikely that the linear construction has ever been someone's choice of optimal strategy. This was done because for quite a long period in the history of military equipment firearms were crappy. It seems more likely that the soldiers used their guns as spears, like warriors from the movie "300", but it is not because they were idiots, unable to think of an alternative. Guns were poorly suited for everything else. Soldiers in XVII, XVIII, and XIX centuries in the early fighting in the linear build largely because smoothbore muskets, they used very inaccurate shot; they were already useless at a distance of fifty meters. Add to this the fact that the musket shots produced so much smoke that after several volleys it was impossible to see anything. The only chance was to build your guys in one big line and order them to fire in one direction, hoping that a swarm of bullets flying listlessly can accidentally kill a couple of enemies. Sometimes it did, but not as often as Hollywood shows. In general, the average of these battles are killed by power 15 percent of the participants (but more on that later). And what about the bayonet? While they certainly were, but their killing efficiency was usually slightly lower than the deaths due to "slipped in their own urine and fear broke his neck." Statistics for the period of application of muskets shows that even during some of the bloodiest battles of the losses from bayonet strokes accounted for only about 2 percent. Bayonet had more of a psychological effect. And the knowledge that helps us to expose the myth of the following ... "Most have lost the battle perished." The battle is over and the dust has settled. A carpet of fallen soldiers covered the land where you do not look. Several surviving protagonists examined and comforted by the fact that they are among the lucky few who managed to survive. Opponents of almost all killed, except for a few people who turn tail, manage to escape. Moral of the story: the war - is hell. But really ... We believe that the war - indeed hell. But not because they all died. In fact, you would have to work hard to find traces of the massacre at the site of any battle outside the special session of the bloodthirsty «CS: GO». Even after these rarely occur super-battles, most of the soldiers remained alive and healthy. This is shown by the following figures: only a battle in Verdun (WWI) was attended by 2.4 million soldiers; the total loss of 976,000 people, the number of people killed during combat operations - 305000. And now that was really terrible. Please note that the number of deaths is around 40 percent, and it is much smaller than the total losses - which include total and wounded and killed. This includes patients who were captured or who simply decided to send all away and went home. For example, while the number of victims of the American Civil War is estimated at 1.5 million people, killed "only" about 620000. In the battle of Gettysburg loss of life on the battlefield is only about 6 percent of the Confederate Army. Even from a blow with a sword or spear perished soldiers not much, as we used to think. In fact, it is very difficult to kill a man wearing armor. If you want to see the real victims of the war, go to a nearby military hospital. The biggest killer on the battlefield of humanity - is the disease. The reason that real combat losses are relatively small part of the total losses, has to expose the next myth ... "All are actively trying to kill each other" Where you might see it: in any of the many war movies. It is logical that all films about the war, we are shown that the people of the warring armies trying to kill each other. It does not matter whether it occurs in ancient Greece, feudal Japan, or in France during World War II: in every war, every man is trying to kill your enemy. They do not necessarily want to, but they should, because if they do not, the other side will not miss your chance. If someone refuses to participate in the battle, he is considered a coward. To win, we have to be in all men! But really ... Do not you think that then, as now, there were people who did not want to kill? Killing random people with whom they have never even met. Thus, they have shied away from getting this military experience. At least most of them. After the Second World War, the US military conducted a study to find out whether an ordinary person is able to shoot another person. The results showed that only about 15 - 20 percent of men voluntarily open fire on the enemy. The rest will not shoot if there is not an officer, who will order them to do so. Probably because it was in the course of most of the historical events - most people just shy away from that. In recent years the situation has changed due to the appearance of a professional army (that is, people who, unlike conscripts and reservists who actually want to serve in the army) and specifically designed for the dehumanization of the enemy's propaganda techniques, which facilitate the killing. During the Vietnam War the US military failed to bring the number of major fire soldiers to 90-95 per cent, but even this does not mean that they are actually trying to hit the target. Yes, it appears that US forces fired 52,000 bullets for each dead person of Vietnam. This clearly shows the difference between the movies and the fact that we have just told you. Maybe people are deliberately trying to give each other the opportunity to go? It seems that people really do not like war. In fact, to kill a man with a gun is as difficult as a thoUSAnd years before the arrival of modern technology. It is not a question of money but a question of a person's ability to pull the trigger. Which brings us to the myth that ... "The real danger is the enemy machine guns and machine guns. Artillery - it's just background noise. " Where you might see it: "Saving Private Ryan," "Band of Brothers," "Gettysburg," "All Quiet on the Western Front," "War Horse," "Pacific Ocean". A group of soldiers in a Hollywood action movie bravely shelling enemy positions, and by shells exploding around them fly clods that add beautiful traces of dirt on the form. You hear the shells whistling through the air, but you know that most of these artillery explosions are used to create the atmosphere. We know that the squad is quickly moving or sitting in the shelter, everything will be OK. But when the main character stumbles upon a machine-gun nest or well hidden guy with a sniper rifle, you know that things are bad .... But really ... We quietly got used to the fact that Hollywood refers to artillery, as something secondary. For decades, he proves us that fiery explosions - just a minor inconvenience and a beautiful, harmless effects. However. in fact, the artillery - your worst enemy on the battlefield. The machine gun can be destroyed by the brave man like Rambo - and this is often the case, as evidenced by the large number of articles. With regard to the snipers, they usually are not considered weapons of mass destruction, because they work for a particular purpose, and not mow their polroty single shots. That was the main artillery killer for most wars throughout the period since the invention of gunpowder until the Second World War. During World War I, according to various estimates, from 70 to 80 percent of the losses were due to the shelling, while machine guns and rifles in the corner gathering dust. The effect of the gun shot is huge. Hard cannon iron core used in the Middle Ages, not only landed on the ground, they could fly through the ranks of the soldiers like a bowling ball, throwing right and left severed limbs. And that was before there were special anti charges and buckshot, which significantly exceeded the performance of the fire guns. Napoleon achieved military success, because it attached great importance to the use of artillery in the battle, and he knew how much damage it can cause to the enemy, and not because of the fact that all his soldiers frightened white tight pants. So he made sure he had more guns than his opponents, which meant that it could cause greater damage from a distance, and at a faster pace. But all this is forgotten Hollywood. Because he hates this war for the same reason that the real generals love her - she impersonal. The film wants every death on the battlefield looked like a duel between the two major protagonists. One hero shoots the other, or stabs him, or perhaps he is flying on a plane so close to the enemy that can see that straight in the eye before you pull the trigger. Every death is the culmination of a personal drama between the characters, but it's fiction. But this does not happen. In fact, most of the people who died on the battlefield, were blown to pieces by bombs or shells launched indiscriminately by people who could not even see them, or died a few weeks later from dehydration caused by diarrhea. But is it the hell anyone would want to look at it? Of course there may be specialists who say that it is not so. Maybe not so I will not argue. I will mention only one movie is a propaganda tool in order to more heroes eager to fight. And in fact, war is terrible and die there, not only those who are eager to fight and those who do not want war at all. Take care of the world. Let the battles will be only in the movies, where they are beautiful.



Related news items:
Newer news items:
Older news items:


Add comment