"History" and the History Channel

[John Beaman]

This thread likely should be in the movies forum, but I’ll place it here for the moment because of the thread, below, about Robert Johnson and possibly Egon Mayer.

I would be VERY careful of accepting any “history” from the History Channel’s “Dogfight” series. They have shown that accuracy is not their forte not just in this series but other shows. The one about Steve Ritchie and his MiG kills over Vietnam is an example. Steve was from a small town about 20 miles from my town. When he returned from Vietnam, I spent a lot of time with him about his missions and his airplanes, looking at hundreds of photos. The program used so many inappropriate photos and movie clips it is sad. They spent a lot of time on his mission of July-10-72 where he shot down 2 MiGs. Not once in photos, movies, or the “recreation” did they show his plane was an F-4E. All they ever showed was his last F-4D. Even then they showed other F-4Ds as if they were his. They showed the F-4D in its final markings, done several days after his 5th kill in August, as if it was the F-4E he flew in July. Other stills and movie clips were also in the wrong chronology or setting.

I guess the editors and producers thing the public will not know the difference. Indeed perhaps the editors and producers do not, so it’s all right to produce something as “history”, however wrong. The problem is, if you get all that wrong, what else might you have played lose and fast with the facts. Frankly, such shows call into question a series or a producer/editor’s intentions, aside from ratings. I guess that’s the bottom line: whatever works. Unfortunately, I run into people who ask questions about historical events I am familiar with, and their opening remark is, Well, I saw it on the History Channel”. After all, it is, in the end, “Hollywood”, not history. Caveat Imperator.

[ArtieBob]

John,

I refuse to watch ANY program on the history channel. In the past, when I watched, the programs were with very few exceptions, poorly researched and written. I would become upset when subjects were being verbally massacred by a commentator with a British accent (probably used to lend an air of credibility to a script otherwise lacking in such a commodity). For a while, I watched a few programs with the sound turned off to see the old film clips, but in the end decided it was a total waste of time, I have better things to do.

Best regards,

Artie Bob

[Franek Grabowski]

I laughed of myself, when a scene in a movie turned out to be flown with three different types of jet bombers - I did not notice it. Now, show me a Spitfire in a movie!
On a serious note, on a cable I have or I have had both Discovery and Planete. Quality of historical movies was terrible, and I do not mean horrible translation. It is a travestation of Copernican theory, that the crap TV will always win with a good show.

[Kutscha]

I don't know who does the research for these programs but they are highly over paid!!!

I would suggest that the programs have to be dressed up to make them interesting for Joe Public. Accuracy be damned.

There also seems to be a lot of American based shows.

[Leo Etgen]

Hi guys

Interesting thread as I too have some opinions about this show. First, I think that it is nice that The History Channel is presenting a program about aces as, first, it is rather interesting, and second, that hopefully this will inspire others to become interested in World War II aerial combat. However, like the above posters, I too have my issues with this series. First, I feel that unintentionally it presents a distorted view of the way things actually were. By this I mean that by focusing solely on one sided American victories, the casual viewer is given an impression that that was the way events usually were. For example, in the episodes that focused on Vietnam, one would be led to believe that the USAF completely dominated the NVPAF. However, the reality was a two to one victory ratio, not bad for an out numbered third world air force, even taking into account the self imposed limitations the USAF was under. Second, I wish that the producers would use phrases such as "claimed" rather than "shot down" and the victims not always shown as going down in flames as well as attempting to match these claims when possible to known losses or at the very least mention how many losses do the opposing side's records show in comparison to the presented victory claims. I realize that there will always be critics and the program is interesting but it does have its faults. By the way, I do not know the difference between an F-4D and an F-4E if it bit me in the ass!

Horrido!

Leo

[Dan O'Connell]

I have the History Channel on almost all the time. If you think Dogfights is bad, I have to suffer through the archaeology shows also.
I think previous posters are right, it's just "exciteing" TV, but the accuracy is awful.
Wait until they have a show (finally) about the Me 262! I will probably have a heart attack. LOL

[kaki3152]

I think ANY program shown on TV has to be viewed with a grain of salt. I can understand Artie Bob's relunctance to view any show on the history channel . but I view these shows with a total disregard for any commentary.

[NickM]

Originally Posted by Dan O'Connell

I have the History Channel on almost all the time. If you think Dogfights is bad, I have to suffer through the archaeology shows also.
I think previous posters are right, it's just "exciteing" TV, but the accuracy is awful.
Wait until they have a show (finally) about the Me 262! I will probably have a heart attack. LOL

Now Dan...we're all either experts here or at least well informed non-professionals...I can just shrug off the factual faux pas...because we KNOW better! In any case, imagine how long the show would take if they tried to unravel all the details....

Although...I WOULD like a good show on the practical reasons there is overclaiming during a confused furball....

NM

[John Beaman]

Originally Posted by Leo Etgen

Hi guys

By the way, I do not know the difference between an F-4D and an F-4E if it bit me in the ass!

Horrido!

Leo

Well, Leo, I can appreciate that. If an E bit you in the ass, it would be painful as it was a rotary 20mm cannon firing about 6,000 rounds per minute!

Seriously, the F-4 was designed by the Navy to intercept those mean old Badgers, Beagles and Backfire bombers that would dare to attack the carrier group. It used only missiles as everyone thought they would be perfect. Over VN, it was learned that sharp-turning MiGs could dodge the missiles, so we also needed a gun. The USAF developed the F-4E with one and it was about 2 feet longer with a sharper nose than the D.

[Leo Etgen]

Hello John

Ouch! That would be painful! Thanks for explaining the difference between the two versions. I must admit that my knowledge of Vietnam era aerial combat is rather scant. That is why I did actually find the Dogfights episodes on that subject rather interesting. For what I have read, the main reason for the difficulties that the USAF had over 'Nam were: lack of training for classic dog fighting, reliance on missiles instead of guns in the belief that the former made the latter superfluous (technically true but the missile technology of the time was not up to task in high G maneuvers) and poor, politically inspired tactics such as approaching targets through standard routes and not attacking North Vietnamese air control centers due to fear of escalating the conflict as Chinese and Russian technicians were there. I must admit that for what I have seen, most of the USAF losses were due to ground fire and SAMs and not so much to MiGs. A tough job and hats off to the guys who were doing as best they could in a difficult and unpopular war. Even though Dogfights does have its problems at least there is a television program out there about a subject that we all are interested in. That gives me an opportunity to demonstrate my superiority to my coworkers when I run my mouth critiquing the latest episode!

Horrido!

Leo