Lock and load...

[44 AMP]

Gonna make things up as you go along, you belong on the Disney Channel

The various "news" channels have been hiring folks like that for some time now.

One thing to remember, nice guy though he is, he's an actor. Which means, unless he KNOWS something isn't right, he's going to deliver the line with confidence. After all, he is playing an expert.

And as I recall, all my the guys with the big hats that ever yelled at me were the same way. Absolutely giving me the strait dope, and don't you dare doubt it, maggot!. Quite a bit of which, I later learned to be not as true as they made it out to be.

 

[Mike Irwin]

44, have you actually been reading this thread?

Ermy is MORE than a simple damned actor! that is the entire point of this thread! Ermy has more than a foundation of knowledge about this stuff. He's not Brad Pitt trying to come across as a nuclear physicist!

Were he just an actor, I wouldn't be bitching about him. I would be bitching about the show writers.

Would you call Fred Thompson just an actor and give him a pass if he got something wrong about Senate procedure?

 

[barnbwt]

"Ermy has more than a foundation of knowledge about this stuff."

So, are you saying he was intentionally lying about this stuff or...

If he's a supposedly respected expert on the subject, why would the writers feel the need to validate his expertise? Why should they hire another (equally in their eyes) qualified expert just for the heck of it?

Gonna go watch Saving Silverman, now. "Ain't no fight left in you boys --you're nut-less!"

TCB

 

[Mike Irwin]

"So, are you saying he was intentionally lying about this stuff or..."



I think it's pretty clear that I'm not accusing him of lying.

I think it's also pretty clear that I am accusing him, his staff, and the History Channel of shoddy research and production.

That's simply unacceptable for things that are so easily checked and from someone who holds himself up to be an expert.

 

[44 AMP]

yes, Mike, I have been reading it...I'm just a little misunderstood..

I think it's also pretty clear that I am accusing him, his staff, and the History Channel of shoddy research and production.

That's simply unacceptable for things that are so easily checked and from someone who holds himself up to be an expert.

I fully agree.

he's held up to be an expert, and given his background, he ought to be knowing a thing or two. But, he is an actor, as well. Yes, he ought to be called out for getting easily checked things wrong, really irritating when those things are not only easily checked, but things lots and lots of us non-experts have known as common knowledge for ages.

It's obvious that the writers, technical advisors and the Gunny himself are not as expert as a lot of the people here on TFL. If they were, the show wouldn't have those kind of mistakes that set our teeth on edge. Somebody in the process is making the mistakes, and nobody else is catching them before the show airs. Is it lack of actual knowledge? or is it laziness? something else?

If you're expected to be an expert on something, and if you are getting paid to be an expert, then you ought to be an expert.

Ok, I'm lost, ...

 

[KMAX]

As Jerry Springer says, " Remember folks, it's only television." I don't think there are any real experts on anything anymore. I can't seem to find an auto mechanic, plumber, carpenter, painter, electrician, or computer whiz, and I am sure the list would go on. I really think people would be capable if they wanted to, but the desire for professionalism and accuracy seems to be missing.

 

[Bart Noir]

Hey guys' lighten up on the Honorary Gunney.

The man has spent so much of his life defending us against..............watermelons

Seriously, I'm kinda with Mike about the lack of accuracy that we so often see, and yes, we are quite naturally believing the Gunny more than some of the weird talking heads I've seen on history-ish shows.

I don't remember which one it was, but no too many years back some show (Best 10 military rifles???) showed an animated cutaway of the M1 Garand firing. And it carefully showed both recoil springs being compressed.

Yup, in addition to the normal recoil spring in the op rod, there was a recoil spring aft of the bolt, which compressed down under the rear sight

Bart Noir

 

[Armorer-at-Law]

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.

The answer may very well be that he simply is not the knowledgeable authority he is represented to be.

 

[seeker_two]

I don't blame Gunny for not being an expert in guns he didn't train with....I blame the actual experts that consult the show for not getting things right.

 

[Doc TH]

The History Channel has always tripped my BS detector. Whether they have Ermey, Ian Hogg, Bill Atwater, Richard Venola, Kristian Gustafson, or other "experts" pontificating about firearms there seems to be an irreducible dose of fable, hearsay, speculation, or just plain error. I find it inexplicable, though quite irritating. A single example was the claim - repeated by Venola and Atwater - that "many" GI's died because the Garand clip made a distinctive sound on ejection letting "everyone" on the battlefield know the shooter's rifle was empty. Anyone who would believe that must think Bloomberg was a great leader and Trump is a humanitarian.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

With no offense, how many cliches are posted here as answers to common questions?

I suppose the TV should be more accurate?

 

[44 AMP]

But..but...I heard the Gunny say "Get a GLock!"

 

[skoro]

As a veteran and WWII buff, I have to roll my eyes at all the obvious and simply corrected errors the History Channel (and whatever they're calling the Military Channel this month) broadcast repeatedly.

And, as an old Marine, the Gunny should know better than to go off like he does at times. But I still like him.

Semper Fi

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

American Hero Channel - or something like that.

Probably the way SyFy was result of a name change.

 

[44 AMP]

Despite the crap shows, and the irritating mistakes in their commentary, and putting the wrong picture on for what they are talking about at the time, I like watching some of it.

General history buff and serious WWII interest and modeler, I like seeing the original footage. I get more from some shows with the sound off!

near panic when I "lost" the Military Channel. Since finding it with a new name, they haven't run anything that really interest me, other than WWII in Color.

Also like the shows where they have surviving veterans talk about what they went through. The CGI planes and tanks are getting better, but still not as good as they ought to be.

Another irritating point for me is when they give you a poor CGI drawing, and then spin it in a constant 360 circle. The "Top Ten" are bad for this, but some others do it too. Probably the same morons working on them....

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I always like the Dogfight shows. They were exciting and the interviews were fun.

 

[Evan Thomas]

Since finding it with a new name, they haven't run anything that really interest me, other than WWII in Color.

That show is weird. Everyone knows that WWII happened in black and white.

 

[DaleA]

I'm amazed with the air-to-air videos from WWII.

I mean going up to fight for your life and they still took the time to mount gun cameras, load 'em with film and make sure the linkages and switches etc were all working correctly. Again, amazing that they did all that.

 

[44 AMP]

The US had a habit of requiring gun camera footage to verify a kill. Not an absolute, but it was tough to get a kill approved without it.

Other nations were not as strict, usually.

Besides the morale value, there is the training & intelligence value of the film, so yes, actually is was a fairly important thing, and pilots wanted it to be working.

There is a story (I'd have to look up the details) about a P-47 pilot, late in the war, who downed 8 Japanese planes over the Philippines, but only got credit for 7 because his gun camera ran out of film!

 

[Mike Irwin]

"That show is weird. Everyone knows that WWII happened in black and white."

A lot of the military's combat footage, especially later in the war, was filmed in color. Kodak developed several new or greatly improved color processes, both in film and developing, during the war specifically for military use.

Film shot in the Pacific was almost totally color (the Marine Corps and Navy did it that way, for some reason), while in Europe it was largely black and white early on and color later.

We have the perception of the war as a black and white war because once the film was brought back to the United States and developed, it was reprinted for news reels, and those were always in black and white because of the expense involved.