Skip to comments.Has anyone been watching the "History Channel's" Mini-Series "The World Wars"?
Posted on 05/28/2014 3:13:51 PM PDT by US Navy Vet
click here to read article
Back when it was good.
The series should have been named, “The World Wars for Morons.”
USAA started out as a fairly exclusive insurance company for Navy Officers (of which am one)...now they are bringing in every swinging dick who had a cousin of an uncle who got a general discharge after failing a piss test.
I expect my rates to go up to counter the new “bad risks” they are allowing in. But, what the hell, I’m already supporting the EBT-ers and the rent offsets...jump on board whoevers! Enjoy the ride.
“Im sure he feels a little bad about those folks who got killed by the bombs...but Im also sure his story is not unique.”
I was 13 when the bombs were dropped and there was great joy and cheering in our Boston neighborhood. We kids all marched down the street banging pots and pans,blowing horns etc. There were many blue and gold stars in neighborhood windows.
Seems terrible now but that’s the way it was.
Just bumping to read more comments later.
Probably NOT when you see all the pics of German soldiers on Armistice Day wearing long moustaches. Would they all be risking a lousy seal on gas masks? Moustache size and style therefore had nothing to do with the seal quality of gas masks.
The older Hitler did have the mannerisms down pat during speech delivery. And they did credit him for being able to move the masses with his oratory. I've often wondered what he would have been able to do with that gift had he been a force for good.
Truly awful. In addition to the obviously inaccurate visuals (Japanese DDG being one of the worst), so much out of sequence and bad context history. Roosevelt sitting at his desk monitoring and dictating military action in real time? I looked at the credits at the end just to make sure this wasn’t made in China and the dubbed in English. Just an abomination.
“Remingtons first high powered sporting bolt action was simply the 1917 Enfield with a sporter stock and slightly better finish. ...”
The Remington Model 30 so closely resembled the US M1917 that it’s still mistaken for a sporterized US Enfield. The actions took pride of place for strength: frequently sporterized in the 1950s-1970s, handled magnum calibers.
Many ex-military bolt actions were sporterized after both World Wars. They were adequate in their day, providing decent rifles for sporting use a lower cost than new commercial rifles. But the entire concept is now problematic:
- Metallurgy was less certain, especially in the years before WWII. The US War Dept - not known for flippancy nor wastefulness in the 1920s - grew concerned about the strength and safety of early M1903s; it ordered the recall of all Springfield-made receivers serial numbered under 800,000, and all Rock Island-made receivers under about 285,000. All were supposed to be destroyed, but a few early ones still surface occasionally. Additionally, no one can predict the deterioration of weapons-grade steel (nor any other type) over long periods of time, especially not when storage and use conditions in the interim have not been documented.
- With the the development of sturdier optics and more finely tunable triggers, sporterized military rifles became less competitive. Bolt handles, safeties, and even receivers had to be modified or at least drilled to accept telescopic sights, thus driving up the cost (the only real justification to begin with). As time wound on, commercial rifle manufacturers made sure their products left the factory with every modern amenity. Ammunition makers offered ever more exotic cartridges; the American shooter, ever in pursuit of the latest whiz-bang trend, was lured toward magnums, which only the very strongest military actions could tolerate. After a time, the older military chamberings seemed less exciting.
- Collector interest has been shifting toward purely military rifles for some years. Sporterizing an original military piece can be seen as destroying a living link with history. A number of specialty firms have begun offering military guns “restored” to original configuration, or more modern variants reworked to resemble particular historic examples in high demand. Fakery has happened, with a view to unscrupulously boosting monetary value. Supplies of original parts - especially stocks, sling swivels, handguards, barrel bands, sights, bayonet studs etc - are drying up. And restorations might look snazzy, but are often very costly, even compared to some purely commercial sporting rifles, which are often of more recent design, made with modern (stronger) metallurgy, chamber modern cartridges, and are made to closer tolerances (though fit and finish rarely equal even standard-issue arms that predate 1940).
Bottom line: don’t expect today’s surplus military rifle to challenge the modern sporter, and don’t hope to get extensive modifications done on the cheap (at least not if you want the results to be functional and safe). And be wary of modification kits or replacement synthetic stocks advertised to be “drop-in fit” or “no gunsmithing required.”
“This program is starting to sound like a comedy or errors.”
Many other posters have noted the abysmal errors in armament details. One might be prepared to accept the misdepiction of a B-17 or a US-made armored vehicle after German markings were hurriedly applied, but the appearance of troops armed with rifles of their allies (or enemies) was jarring - especially when the footage clearly showed their prop department had plenty of US M1903s and at least some British Enfield variant in the arms locker. And there are quite a few FN M24s, and Yugoslav M48s, on the market that could have done very credible duty as Mauser 98 carbines at least.
More subtle perhaps, but quite jarring to those of us with active duty tours under our belts, was the lack of attention to grooming standards, even when some of the “main characters” appeared in closeup, and not on a grubby battlefield:
Douglas MacArthur and George S. Patton Jr both graduated from West Point; Patton spent time as a VMI cadet before going to USMA. Both were tall and lean and a little vain; it’s tough to accept that they’d ever have appeared in public with days of stubble on their faces, as the series showed. Patton in particular earned his reputation as a fussy martinet demanding stiff grooming and dress standards: many junior troops detested him (see writings of Andy Rooney and Bill Mauldin).
Winston S. Churchill graduated from Sandhurst Royal Military Academy, and was never in possession of a small ego. It’s equally difficult to believe he would have appeared in public in such an unkempt state.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries even the factory workers took more pride in their appearance. Think of the photos of Wilbur & Orville Wright, in coat & tie experimenting with their airplane. Remington factory records and workers’ diaries are well-studded with references to how spiffily the workers dressed, with some entries approximating “never showed for a day of work in 25 years without my cravat”.
I quit watching when they showed the Japanese using Arleigh Burke class destroyers at the Battle of Midway.
“I cant say for sure that Churchill never used a M1911 but I have never read of his having used one. “
Google ‘Churchill 1911 colt 45’. Several documented cases.
One source states he purchased ‘C15566’ in 1915.
I did as you suggested and did indeed find several mentions of Churchill using a Colt but in British .455 caliber.
You win the argument as you can support your statement.
I am actually still not convinced that he ever carried one. One of the statements which also gets quoted by other is inaccurate in part of what it states. It says that both Churchill and T.E. Lawrence traded in their M1896 Mausers for Colt 1911s at the first opportunity.
That could not be totally accurate as Churchill had his Mauser taken from him by a Boer and the gun has never surfaced again. But that still makes it more likely that Churchill did indeed have a Colt as he no longer had his Mauser and he probably did keep a gun. That could have been one of his Webley revolvers tho.
“You win the argument”
No argument. Just a discussion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.