Which era of warfare gets the most accurately depicted in movies or other media?

[Red Iron Crown]

22 hours ago, todofwar said:

I think a special mention has to be naval warfare. Pretty sure it has never actually been depicted accurately, maybe the 17th century? Definitely nothing past then, since gun ranges have gotten longer and longer so ships in WWI and WWII we're miles away from their targets. 

You should give Midway a watch, it's a good portrayal of WW2 naval action. There's some dramatization of dialog and a silly subplot about a Navy man in love with a Japanese-American, but the depiction of the criticality of intelligence and scouting are spot on, as well as the indecisiveness of the Japanese admirals leading to some of their problems. And also how much of a factor chance and luck play.  

[Matuchkin]

On 12/9/2016 at 3:27 PM, wumpus said:

* no, I am not a wargamer.

Other than mentioning a few obvious facts that I was reminded by from Wargame ALB, when did I mention wargames?

[wumpus]

23 hours ago, todofwar said:

I think the issue with war games is there is a strong perception about what should be the most effective unit. For example, Lord of the Rings and other similar films/books have us thinking cavalry are the be all end all of military units. So, developers try to match those expectations. Or they make units under or overpowered to balance the game, regardless of how powerful things might be in real life. 

I think a lot of "cavalry rules all" comes from historical writings that might not have been too careful about the battlefield.  I suspect that most literate folks before Agincourt and the rise of the Swiss pike tended to be of the same class as the knights and shared their views.  In practice, they overestimated themselves (and the French were more famous for such) until such was absolutely impossible due to mass bowman (who could penetrate armor) and phalanx tactics.

In practice, there weren't a lot of cavalry losses in the West from about Charlemange's time to Agincourt.  But before and after there were plenty.  And you would be hard pressed to point out Mongol losses to infantry (not caused by nature).  I'd hope there would be less "strategy games" of era's technologically similar to "Lord of the Rings", Western nations just didn't *do* strategy, and when somebody used tactics (like Joan of Arc), it was virtually witchcraft (ok, they may have burned her because they weren't beating her any other way).  Other areas (certainly China and Constantinople) of that time were a bit more on the ball.

30 minutes ago, Matuchkin said:

Other than mentioning a few obvious facts that I was reminded by from Wargame ALB, when did I mention wargames?

The title included "other media" and I pretty much give up on Hollywood for such things.

[Red Iron Crown]

46 minutes ago, Matuchkin said:

Other than mentioning a few obvious facts that I was reminded by from Wargame ALB, when did I mention wargames?

I play a bit of Wargame: Red Dragon, it's a good bit of Cold War-themed RTS fun but it takes a *lot* of liberties with realism in the name of gameplay. Plus they've started adding DLC factions that are a bit OP.

I really want to pick up Command: Modern Air Naval Operations as it is the spiritual successor to Harpoon and depicts modern naval warfare pretty well, but the game is really expensive even when it's on sale.

[Matuchkin]

37 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

I play a bit of Wargame: Red Dragon, it's a good bit of Cold War-themed RTS fun but it takes a *lot* of liberties with realism in the name of gameplay. Plus they've started adding DLC factions that are a bit OP.

I know. I don't base all of my knowledge on Wargame.

[diomedea]

36 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

I play a bit of Wargame: Red Dragon, it's a good bit of Cold War-themed RTS fun but it takes a *lot* of liberties with realism in the name of gameplay. Plus they've started adding DLC factions that are a bit OP.

I really want to pick up Command: Modern Air Naval Operations as it is the spiritual successor to Harpoon and depicts modern naval warfare pretty well, but the game is really expensive even when it's on sale.

Though I'm rather old, can't really talk about eras other than contemporary. But when it comes to Naval Ops, can assure everybody about Harpoon, and C:MANO, to be a lot accurate (have quite some direct experience in the field of Naval operations, was my true job years ago). A few navies actually use Harpoon versions to train junior officers to the role.

[Kerbart]

Medieval fighting was efficient and incredibly brutal. Longsword fighting lasts seconds, not minutes; a tiny mistake was your last. The glorious fighting seen in the movies is the biggest BS one can think of.

[tater]

Yeah, a buddy of mine teaches fencing, and he hates most all swordplay in movies, even duels---and real combat bears little resemblance to 1 v 1 duels. Shield wall, and loads of pushing and shoving, with some casualties. The real butchery didn't seem to happen until on side broke, most all deaths were the routed side---and that was really a primary function of cavalry, to ride them down and butcher those fleeing.

Gotta love movies that show horses galloping into a shield wall   .

[todofwar]

2 hours ago, wumpus said:

I think a lot of "cavalry rules all" comes from historical writings that might not have been too careful about the battlefield.  I suspect that most literate folks before Agincourt and the rise of the Swiss pike tended to be of the same class as the knights and shared their views.  In practice, they overestimated themselves (and the French were more famous for such) until such was absolutely impossible due to mass bowman (who could penetrate armor) and phalanx tactics.

In practice, there weren't a lot of cavalry losses in the West from about Charlemange's time to Agincourt.  But before and after there were plenty.  And you would be hard pressed to point out Mongol losses to infantry (not caused by nature).  I'd hope there would be less "strategy games" of era's technologically similar to "Lord of the Rings", Western nations just didn't *do* strategy, and when somebody used tactics (like Joan of Arc), it was virtually witchcraft (ok, they may have burned her because they weren't beating her any other way).  Other areas (certainly China and Constantinople) of that time were a bit more on the ball.

The title included "other media" and I pretty much give up on Hollywood for such things.

Well, to be fair Europeans managed to hold off many invaders and even managed to give the Romans a run for their money at the height of Roman power. 

Back to the cavalry question, the Mongols were horse archers, not shock cavalry for the most part. But the western disdain for archery makes that seem a strange concept to many people, so we end up with the idea that the Mongol (and other Steppe peoples) were awesome because they had tons of cavalry which must have been shock cavalry. 

[magnemoe]

4 hours ago, todofwar said:

Well, to be fair Europeans managed to hold off many invaders and even managed to give the Romans a run for their money at the height of Roman power. 

Back to the cavalry question, the Mongols were horse archers, not shock cavalry for the most part. But the western disdain for archery makes that seem a strange concept to many people, so we end up with the idea that the Mongol (and other Steppe peoples) were awesome because they had tons of cavalry which must have been shock cavalry. 

Europe against Rome was mostly an issue with supply lines and that Europe is large, for Rome pushing into Germany was a lot like invading Russia later. 

Cavalry was important. To counter it you used tight formations with pikes. if that formation broke you could massacre  them as Tater says. Cavalry was also effective against supply and enemies on the road if you could hit before grouping up. 

Horse archery take an long time to learn. Steppe people spend half the day riding and had an benefit here.
And yes they was very hard to counter, faster than other units and better range. After guns Europe used plenty of light cavalry too, it was not as strong relatively as the infantry also had guns. 

Think Europe did not used archery so much was also training time, Light hunting bows was not so effective against shield walls and armor either. 
Add that the rulers did not like to train the masses with an weapon for killing knights on an distance. 

[Elthy]

I wonder if anyone actualy wants to make a war-movie thats accurate. If it would manage to properly convey the "emotions" of soldiers noone would want to watch it...

 

Edit: To bad that "Threads" isnt easy to get in Germany...

Edited December 11, 2016 by Elthy

[todofwar]

40 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Europe against Rome was mostly an issue with supply lines and that Europe is large, for Rome pushing into Germany was a lot like invading Russia later. 

Cavalry was important. To counter it you used tight formations with pikes. if that formation broke you could massacre  them as Tater says. Cavalry was also effective against supply and enemies on the road if you could hit before grouping up. 

Horse archery take an long time to learn. Steppe people spend half the day riding and had an benefit here.
And yes they was very hard to counter, faster than other units and better range. After guns Europe used plenty of light cavalry too, it was not as strong relatively as the infantry also had guns. 

Think Europe did not used archery so much was also training time, Light hunting bows was not so effective against shield walls and armor either. 
Add that the rulers did not like to train the masses with an weapon for killing knights on an distance. 

The Celts and some Germanic tribes did manage to invade all the way to the north of Italy though. And it was the Germanic tribes that eventually took down Rome in the west. The Umayyad invasion was probably more a supply line issue though. But the point I was trying to make about cavalry is that it was not some super powered force. It's most effective use was speed, you can cover ground, attack flanks, slaughter the enemy in retreat, but you don't actually want to assault formed infantry. And the steppe advantage was in their amazing horse archer abilities and tactics, not in lancers or anything resembling what wargames portray as heavy cavalry. 

[kerbiloid]

Afaik, combatant Mongols were mostly mounted infantry. Most of them were just peasants owning horses, not aristocracy living by war,

Edited December 12, 2016 by kerbiloid

[magnemoe]

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Afaik, combatant Mongols were mostly mounted infantry. Most of them were just peasants owning horses, not aristocracy living by war,

Mongols was normadic herders not farmers, they was excellent riders and was mostly light cavalry. 
In medival time the only one who rode into combat was nobles or their soldiers, all was cavalry. 

Mounted infantry is an later invention then horses became common in farming, The soldiers did not have the long cavalry training but used the horses for increased mobility. 

[kerbiloid]

47 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Mongols was normadic herders not farmers

Yes, under peasant I meant any kind of plebian as opposed to feudal.

47 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

they was excellent riders and was mostly light cavalry. 
In medival time the only one who rode into combat was nobles or their soldiers, all was cavalry. 

Mounted infantry is an later invention then horses became common in farming, The soldiers did not have the long cavalry training but used the horses for increased mobility. 

Afaik, they (nomads) usually dismounted for battles, unless some short contact between small groups or a follow-up action.
Exactly like a mounted infantry of XIX-XX did. Just with melee weapons and bows instead of carabines,

Horses were common in farming from ancient times on Russian Plain and to the North-West. Oxes even aren't mentioned as a plough animal in folklore, they are used to the South,
A difference between a mounted peasant/farmer/herder moving by horse and a cavalier is not defined by a horse presence.

An armed peasant has poor primitive weapon (mostly axe, spear or club — easy to make, easy to use), poor armor (a leather jacket with occasional metal plates).
He more or less can use bow and arrows because hunts from time to time, and steadilly uses polearms and knives because he does this all his life 24/7
He moves either by foot, or by a jade-type, "agricultural" horse.
This allows him to move relatively fast, following his army, allows to follow-up running enemies, but is mostly useless in battle.
Because his horse is small, weak and "unstable", his armor is weak and his weapon is mostly for knife-fight or a fence of spears.
He arrives to the battle and drops down becoming an infantry man.

An armed herder is the same, but better with arrows. His horse is angry and very enduring (my grandfather worked with them in WWII artillery), but small and weak compared to a feudal battle horse.
He can perform long marches, or hit-n-run, or follow-up enemies. So has no problems with logistics.
But in the battle this rider is of same kind of matter. Just a peasant on a jade.

Cavalier rides not just a horse, but a destrier.
It (destrier) eats much better than a peasant's village, weights twice against a jade, wears armor, psychologically trained and can push aside peasants (even on horses) like a bully. It costs like a herd of usual horses.
Cavalier's armor weights 30-35 kg and is made of metal. Mongolian one - the same. Only poor riders looked like stereotypical nomads, Mongolian aristocrate's armor sometimes weighted even more than a European one.
And all they can is fighting. So, as you can ensure in chronicles, feudal armies scattered peasant/herder armies in 1:20 ratio, nevermind were the peasants/herders mounted or not.

Edited December 12, 2016 by kerbiloid

[Just Jim]

On 12/10/2016 at 8:18 AM, radonek said:

Bad question IMO, it largely depens on who is creating the stuff. It is obvious that, say, Hollywood would be more careful about Lincoln then King Arthur. Space combat is probably only point where everyone is equal in wrongness. So  far best war movies I've seen are Stalingrad (the1993 one) and Das Boot.

Ahhh, this was my comment, but you beat me.

I agree it depends on the movie, and who made it. For instance, it was just Dec. 7th, and I watched "Tora, Tora, Tora" and "Pearl Harbor" back to back. "Tora, Tora, Tora" is so accurate at times it feels more like a documentary than a movie. But "Pearl Harbor" makes me want to bang my head against the nearest solid object I can find.

"Das Boot" is one of my favorites. If you liked that, you should check out "The Blue Max" (1966). Amazing movie about WW1 pilots, as seen from the German side. The planes alone are so perfect they can bring a tear to your eye... 

Edited December 12, 2016 by Just Jim

[KerikBalm]

On 12/5/2016 at 0:36 AM, HoloYolo said:

BF1 takes place at the end of WWI, where trenches were fading away to new types of warfare. Tanks and automatic handheld weapons were becoming norms. Technology moved forward like the frontlines, instead of constant stalemate and attrition. BF1 is meant to explore the end of "The Great War" and show how warfare truly changed, on a personal and frontlines level.

So that excuses a bayoneet lunge from 100meters away (like Halo2's sword flying), tanks crashing through walls well faster than a human's sprinting speed (early tanks moved at walking speed or slower), the ability of tanks to drive on the wing of a plane, and then have the plane fly them around?

The general inaccuracy of the way the vehicles handle, aim assists that allow shots to hit routinely that would almost never hit....

I rest my case

 

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Yes, under peasant I meant any kind of plebian as opposed to feudal.

Afaik, they (nomads) usually dismounted for battles, unless some short contact between small groups or a follow-up action.
Exactly like a mounted infantry of XIX-XX did. Just with melee weapons and bows instead of carabines,

Horses were common in farming from ancient times on Russian Plain and to the North-West. Oxes even aren't mentioned as a plough animal in folklore, they are used to the South,
A difference between a mounted peasant/farmer/herder moving by horse and a cavalier is not defined by a horse presence.

An armed peasant has poor primitive weapon (mostly axe, spear or club — easy to make, easy to use), poor armor (a leather jacket with occasional metal plates).
He more or less can use bow and arrows because hunts from time to time, and steadilly uses polearms and knives because he does this all his life 24/7
He moves either by foot, or by a jade-type, "agricultural" horse.
This allows him to move relatively fast, following his army, allows to follow-up running enemies, but is mostly useless in battle.
Because his horse is small, weak and "unstable", his armor is weak and his weapon is mostly for knife-fight or a fence of spears.
He arrives to the battle and drops down becoming an infantry man.

An armed herder is the same, but better with arrows. His horse is angry and very enduring (my grandfather worked with them in WWII artillery), but small and weak compared to a feudal battle horse.
He can perform long marches, or hit-n-run, or follow-up enemies. So has no problems with logistics.
But in the battle this rider is of same kind of matter. Just a peasant on a jade.

Cavalier rides not just a horse, but a destrier.
It (destrier) eats much better than a peasant's village, weights twice against a jade, wears armor, psychologically trained and can push aside peasants (even on horses) like a bully. It costs like a herd of usual horses.
Cavalier's armor weights 30-35 kg and is made of metal. Mongolian one - the same. Only poor riders looked like stereotypical nomads, Mongolian aristocrate's armor sometimes weighted even more than a European one.
And all they can is fighting. So, as you can ensure in chronicles, feudal armies scattered peasant/herder armies in 1:20 ratio, nevermind were the peasants/herders mounted or not.

Some new information and you are right. Looks like horses was common earlier in Eastern Europe. 
One exception if degree of fighting from horseback where the herders did fight from horseback often as an mounted archer. 
And yes destriers is another matter, it was the main issue with heavy cavalery, the horses was so expensive and was still vulnerable in combat. 
probably a bit overrated because of rarity and coolness factor as fighter jets are today. 
 

[todofwar]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Yes, under peasant I meant any kind of plebian as opposed to feudal.

Afaik, they (nomads) usually dismounted for battles, unless some short contact between small groups or a follow-up action.
Exactly like a mounted infantry of XIX-XX did. Just with melee weapons and bows instead of carabines,

Horses were common in farming from ancient times on Russian Plain and to the North-West. Oxes even aren't mentioned as a plough animal in folklore, they are used to the South,
A difference between a mounted peasant/farmer/herder moving by horse and a cavalier is not defined by a horse presence.

An armed peasant has poor primitive weapon (mostly axe, spear or club — easy to make, easy to use), poor armor (a leather jacket with occasional metal plates).
He more or less can use bow and arrows because hunts from time to time, and steadilly uses polearms and knives because he does this all his life 24/7
He moves either by foot, or by a jade-type, "agricultural" horse.
This allows him to move relatively fast, following his army, allows to follow-up running enemies, but is mostly useless in battle.
Because his horse is small, weak and "unstable", his armor is weak and his weapon is mostly for knife-fight or a fence of spears.
He arrives to the battle and drops down becoming an infantry man.

An armed herder is the same, but better with arrows. His horse is angry and very enduring (my grandfather worked with them in WWII artillery), but small and weak compared to a feudal battle horse.
He can perform long marches, or hit-n-run, or follow-up enemies. So has no problems with logistics.
But in the battle this rider is of same kind of matter. Just a peasant on a jade.

Cavalier rides not just a horse, but a destrier.
It (destrier) eats much better than a peasant's village, weights twice against a jade, wears armor, psychologically trained and can push aside peasants (even on horses) like a bully. It costs like a herd of usual horses.
Cavalier's armor weights 30-35 kg and is made of metal. Mongolian one - the same. Only poor riders looked like stereotypical nomads, Mongolian aristocrate's armor sometimes weighted even more than a European one.
And all they can is fighting. So, as you can ensure in chronicles, feudal armies scattered peasant/herder armies in 1:20 ratio, nevermind were the peasants/herders mounted or not.

That comes down to allot more than cavalry vs infantry though. Knights were better fed, had training, had better overall equipment. Same reason Sparta has its reputation, they actually bothered to train more than a week or two before the battle. The Roman legions, at their height, probably beat most dark age and medieval armies and they barely used cavalry. And Mongolian armies routinely scattered forces much larger than their own despite being mostly herders, but they didn't rely on the same kind of heavy cavalry that gets romanticized so much in the west.

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, KerikBalm said:

So that excuses a bayoneet lunge from 100meters away (like Halo2's sword flying), tanks crashing through walls well faster than a human's sprinting speed (early tanks moved at walking speed or slower), the ability of tanks to drive on the wing of a plane, and then have the plane fly them around?

The general inaccuracy of the way the vehicles handle, aim assists that allow shots to hit routinely that would almost never hit....

I rest my case

 

LOL the last is an pretty obvious exploit, think KSP ladder drive. Looks like shooting up the wing some you could jam the tanks in there. Easy to fix, in contact between tank and plane the plane get destroyed. 
More weird about the guy on the roof, also an tank falling down a long distance should get destroyed but this might be an follow up bug from the plane exploit. 

Aim assist is because of console controllers, and yes an semi skilled player learn to exploit this in that he don't need to aim accurately, aim assist with rapid fire weapons is an exploit in it self.

I had some serious funny moments with it in Fallout 3 with high skill in heavy weapons and a gatling laser. Beam jumped between targets once one was dead, aim over them for headshot. 
Excused in that it was single player and an RPG, an character with maxed heavy weapon skills and the best heavy weapon in the game should be better than you. 

[DarkOwl57]

2 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

 

 

*Benny Hill music*

[razark]

6 minutes ago, DarkOwl57 said:

*Benny Hill music*

*Yakety Sax*

[wumpus]

On 12/10/2016 at 11:11 PM, tater said:

Gotta love movies that show horses galloping into a shield wall   .

From what I understand that it took the French a good hundred years to realize they couldn't do that (possibly because communications were *that* bad.  Knights discounted rumors of such disasters since they "knew they weren't true".  Also, unless your enemy were viking raiders or roman legions (Swiss pikemen didn't use shields) or other *professional* soldiers, I suspect that attacking cavalry rightly guessed that the shield wall wouldn't hold against a full charge.  Could *you* hold a shield while several hundred pounds of horse crashes against it?  All the while knowing that if the guy to the left or right breaks, you are certainly dead?

On 12/10/2016 at 11:04 PM, Kerbart said:

Medieval fighting was efficient and incredibly brutal. Longsword fighting lasts seconds, not minutes; a tiny mistake was your last. The glorious fighting seen in the movies is the biggest BS one can think of.

True enough in duels, but I think we (as in modern people with access to current historical thinking, I might be wrong) know that battles could take awhile.  I've heard that "the stout" was high praise because it meant you could keep your shield up through the battle.  Shield wall vs. shield wall could be a slow process (especially when if one falls there is a backup or two behind him).  I'm fairly sure Hastings was a slow process (but could have been brief clashes punctuating long periods of staring at each other just out of range for all I know).

22 hours ago, todofwar said:

Well, to be fair Europeans managed to hold off many invaders and even managed to give the Romans a run for their money at the height of Roman power. 

Back to the cavalry question, the Mongols were horse archers, not shock cavalry for the most part. But the western disdain for archery makes that seem a strange concept to many people, so we end up with the idea that the Mongol (and other Steppe peoples) were awesome because they had tons of cavalry which must have been shock cavalry. 

Could be.  Except that modern people are likely to assume that Mongols were unbeatable because they were nomadic light cavalry.  Being nomadic, it meant the *entire* nation could go to war and fight effectively (from horseback).  Massed archers are scary, and the Mongols could choose were to mass them quickly (while they are assumed to be "hordes", their discipline and tactics were near Roman standards).  Also being nomadic light cavalry, in the unlikely event they met a force they couldn't beat (heavy cavalry, massed infantry archers (presumably with longbows/crossbows)), they simply could avoid the fight without issue (and pick them off as the army dispersed).

Shock cavalry could *lose* (not often, but hitting a shield wall has risk).  The mongols could avoid that option, at least until they got used to ruling their empire.  It might not be that much of a surprise that if fell apart soon after.

[todofwar]

27 minutes ago, wumpus said:

 

Shock cavalry could *lose* (not often, but hitting a shield wall has risk).  The mongols could avoid that option, at least until they got used to ruling their empire.  It might not be that much of a surprise that if fell apart soon after.

Yeah, not enough credit is given to just how sophisticated the Mongol war machine was. Of course, such a military requires a culture that revolves around horses and living on horseback, essentially. Once they became settled, they had to make due with lesser cavalry and ended up resorting to the same kinds of armies they had just defeated. In fact, they often did use the locals to amplify their forces, much like the Romans. 

[Racescort666]

1 hour ago, wumpus said:

I think we (as in modern people with access to current historical thinking, I might be wrong) know that battles could take awhile.

I would like to take this time to point out that a siege was usually a several month affair while the invading army attempted to starve out the fortress. This could be something that many people are willing to give a pass on because who wants to watch an army surround a city and just sit there? 

I agree with @tater, there is literally no reason to have something wrong that I can find out in 5 minutes by searching google or wikipedia. Those kinds of mistakes are unacceptable if a movie is being marketed as even remotely historically accurate. 

Also, with deference to the OP, how does everyone feel about calling 1200 AD - 1800 AD the Renaissance? That would be kind of taking some liberties with the timing though.