I'm in my last year of high school and recently got a very hard essay for my Modern history class. "To what extent does the series Band of Brothers accurately depict the role of the 101st Airborne in the Battle of the Bulge in December 1944?" I am finding it very hard to write this essay and I would appreciate some help. This essay is not asking for inccorect historical aspects of the series though e.g. they wore different uniforms or they had different helmets. Instead it is focusing more on the importance of the battle of the bulge compared to the series etc. Thank you
Read up on the 101st in the Bulge, plenty of works. Compare it to the Series. Each battalion had its roles in the Bulge, you may find the experiences of a Glider Bn different from a Para Bn
Suggest you read 'The Battered Bastards Of Bastogne' by George Koskimaki - not a difficult book to find in the USA. It will answer all your questions and you'll learn something, too.
I personally would concentrate on the way "Hollywood" portrays combat and military life to the reality of it. Some examples might be: Combat tends to be concentrated at close ranges in videos. This is, of course, due to the need to portray action on the camera. Explosions tend to be large and firey for visual effect. Men and equipment tend to be bunched up. Confusion does not rein, the director and actors carry out the script efficently rather than the chaos of combat being the rule. The reality is the battlefield is largely empty. The enemy is only seen in fleeting glimpses (they like one's own troops tend to try and hide / remain unobserved for obvious reasons). Much of the time military operations are downright boring. Nothing is going on. Band of Brothers tends to only show the combat and intense moments as the director and writers know most audiences would be bored by boring 'stuff.' On explosions: These really are just some smoke and dust and a loud band. It is the shrapnel that does the real damage. Instead of some stuntman flying through the air more realistically it is some guy suddenly flying apart for no apparent reason as the explosion goes off some distance away. There is alot more dialogue in a video. Actors have to have lines. I also don't think that actors can fully portray the fear of combat conviencingly. And, the troops don't look nearly as worn and filthy etc as photos often show. With AFV the crews (at least experianced ones) rarely take chances advancing. They tend to move very cautiously. Usually with the Germans the AFV are not heavily supported by infantry in the West in 1944. There are numerous detailed battle studies on the Ardennes that show this is the fact.
Yes, well put T.A.! It is true in almost all WW2 films you start laughing once you see the guys attacking the enemy in one huge bunch. What a nice view to look at from behind a MG....But like said, in a movie spreading the troops does not look any good.
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/documents/WWII/501PIRBulge.htm Read about another Regiment's explits, this is the 501 PIR
Excellent stuff there Gardner, warfare is much more mundane and much less "glorious" than Hollywood portrays.
To help make a comparision with the actual, IF you have fast downloading, perhaps try: http://cgsc.cdm.oclc.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/p4013coll8&CISOPTR=367&REC=1 No.9
