Patton 360

[Jonathan M]

Just caught the two episodes on You Tube. Nice CGI but a few things narked me. Firstly, why the comparisons to todays army and weaponry? Any idiot knows the difference between WW2 weapons and the weapons employed today.

Secondly, I feel that Americans tend to over glorify Patton and his achievements. Personally i like his style of leadership and his emphasis on mobile and attacking warfare, akin to many German commnaders of the time, but i do feel that his achievements have been blown out of proportion. Like Rommel, candidate for over rated General of ww2.

Thirdly, one of the historian 'experts' valued the flexibility of the American Army over the inflexible 'discipline' of the Gemrman Army, a place where the soldier was also encouraged to learn the role of someone with a rank or two more than him in order to keep things going should battle casualties arise.

Anyhow, I've seen the History Channel US version of the series and I see they stuck with that patronising git that did the Battle 360 series, anyone who sees that without an inkling of knowledge will think the Enterprise won the war on her own!

[PZIV]

I agree. Not only is Patton glorified, but so is the entire American military. The "experts" get a great many facts incorrect and have many incorrect assertions, but I do believe the American history channel is funded by the military. It's no wonder then...

Just caught the two episodes on You Tube. Nice CGI but a few things narked me. Firstly, why the comparisons to todays army and weaponry? Any idiot knows the difference between WW2 weapons and the weapons employed today.

Secondly, I feel that Americans tend to over glorify Patton and his achievements. Personally i like his style of leadership and his emphasis on mobile and attacking warfare, akin to many German commnaders of the time, but i do feel that his achievements have been blown out of proportion. Like Rommel, candidate for over rated General of ww2.

Thirdly, one of the historian 'experts' valued the flexibility of the American Army over the inflexible 'discsipline' of the Gemrman Army, a place where the soldier was also encouraged to learn the role of someone with a rank or two more than him in order to keep things going should battle casualties arise.

Anyhow, I've seen the History Channel US version of the series and I see they stuck with that patronising git that did the Battle 360 series, anyone who sees that without an inkling of knowledge will think the Enterprise won the war on her own!

[Tim O'Keefe]

Hi Jonathan

I agree completely. About a month ago tuned in for the Kasserine Pass episode and found the modern comparisons really distracting from the WWII side.
Also as the show neared the end my freind and i wondered where the Kasserine Pass battle itself wes covered as we did not remember seeing much about it, so we watched it again. In the middle part. It was like "oh by the way there was a big battle at the Pass". Just a couple sentence's even mentioned it in an episode devoted the the subject supposedly. Leave it to PBS to find any reason a battle was lost or won except for the Military reasons....

with regards
Tim

[ramon]

Mansal wrote, "but I do believe the American history channel is funded by the military. It's no wonder then..."

The History Channel is NOT funded by the US Government or any US Military entity... Jeesh... Nothing like making a leap of faith based upon a mistaken statement of "fact".


It is owned by Arts and Entertainment Networks which is a joint venture of Hearst, Disney and NBC.



Ramon

[WWIIBuff]

Patton 360

The History Channel just ran all the episodes of this show back to back last weekend. I was able to watch a few of them and I found them enjoyable. However I agree with what has been said already about the modern day comparisons, they were not necessary and they ruined the flow of the production. Additionally they kept using some of the same archiveal footage over and over again for different battles.

But the thing that bugs me the most is when they keep calling the German forces the "Nazi's". I know this is a common mistake that only people like us would pick up on, but this is a personal pieve of mine. This is something that we should not expect from a show made by "historians". This would be like calling the US Army in Iraq the "Democrats" or for the last four years the "Republicans".

But if you can look past these mistakes, I think it is still a good production.

[PZIV]

Mansal wrote, "but I do believe the American history channel is funded by the military. It's no wonder then..."

The History Channel is NOT funded by the US Government or any US Military entity... Jeesh... Nothing like making a leap of faith based upon a mistaken statement of "fact".


It is owned by Arts and Entertainment Networks which is a joint venture of Hearst, Disney and NBC.

Ramon

I stand corrected. Could have sworn someone/where reputable had information it was funded by the army. I guess that wouldn't make much sense anyway.