Old thread, but I only recently acquired History Channel.
Although the CGI work is good and improving with the newer episodes, I find it a pretty shallow experience. The visuals may be good, but many of the effects are repetitive, irritating and not seldom jut unrealistic. That's the visuals.
The history part is IMHO very shallow, more of a "how I made my kill" story than an objective view at an air battle. In some cases the program makers are very selective in what they show and what not. The same team makes other programs, covering naval battles etc, that appear to be even more selective. The CGI creates the illusion of authenticity, while in fact it is nothing more than a visual impression, mostly based on a single source passed through a selective filter.
Unfortunately I find the series one sided, repetitive, shallow, not seldom marred by irritating visual effects* and ultimately disappointing.
History Channel in general is just ok, just like Discovery Channel, it is documentary Muzak (call it Dozak if you wish), just a form of entertainment that helps fill your spare time. It seldom challenges conventional wisdom and always ends on safe ground. Every now and than a program does surprise, but those are often co-productions (with the BBC for instance).
Making docudrama is very popular nowadays, which I find very irritating as it is mostly noise over data. I don't see how all those (bad) reenactments help to explain historical events. Just give me the old school footage, foto and interview format. If you are covering pre-film days, than you still have plenty of creative options other than reenactment.
*camera wobble ad nauseam, is one example