An army joke is actively circulating around the networks that in order to engage in hand-to-hand combat, a commando must first enchantingly ... lose not only an assault rifle and a gun, but also a knife, a belt, a sapper blade, body armor and a helmet, and even choose absolutely a flat and “sterile” platform, where there are no wooden sticks, or even stones at all. Oh yes! And there to meet the same enemy gouging (also completely lost all military ammunition).
But many movie militants and TV shows stubbornly convince us that the special forces are just fighting. Still would! After all, it is much more spectacular and very dramatic!
From them we learn that all-all ancient peoples (Greeks, Celts, Gauls, Vikings, etc.) fought exclusively by the crowd, randomly running into the same crowd of enemies and randomly nailing with a sword or ax in all directions.
And also: that samurai could cross wide rivers in full gear, firing from a bow in the process; that the ninja generally ran across water barriers; that the Mongol arrows had great destructive power (punching a man through) and never flew past the target; that neither a machine gun, nor even a gun practically require reloading and can shoot as long as necessary, etc.
And it’s okay, such things were encountered only in films that did not intersect with real historical events. But historical cinema does not really bother with even the smallest believability of what is happening on the screen.
And here are 10 of the most common movie myths about war:
10. Hand-to-hand combat
How many times have we watched in various science fiction films how two heroes who had just been “naughty” at each other from afar with laser weapons suddenly burst heavy guns to the side in a fit of a mysterious feeling and begin to break bones with each other with their fists. Hm ...
But the very pistol (if they beat the enemy) would give the blows a much greater “weight”. No, on the one hand everything is clear - the romance of outer space, intergalactic chivalric orders (which, of course, have some kind of written and unwritten codes of conduct) and the like ...
And, thanks to the scene with hand-to-hand combat, you can catch both “antagonists” (and even close-ups) in the frame, which would be problematic in the case of a firefight from afar.
And on the other hand, where is the logic in such a battle? If you really need to deal with this evil type for good - shoot him and don’t suffer (and don’t annoy the audience with pathos in the process). By the way, in films positioned as historical, this situation is also not uncommon.
Meanwhile, by the beginning of the 20th century, losses from hand-to-hand (saber and bayonet battles) in real wars accounted for no more than 2% of losses.
9. Shooting "Macedonian"
It looks very impressive on the screen when the hero (or heroine) shoots at once from both hands with two pistols (or even machine guns), while at the same time very beautifully flying off to the side, to cover.
Indeed, such a method of shooting has been used from time to time in life, but only in strictly defined cases.
So, for example, in the first half of the 20th century, such hurricane shooting in the style of “white light like a penny” was sometimes used by detectives, gangsters or intelligence agents, simply because it caused panic among the enemy because of the general effect of surprise and huge noise, causing him to throw himself in cover.
But the benefits of such a seemingly stunning fire - at least, because the percentage of hits, of course, is negligible.
But it’s especially funny to see the “Macedonian” shooting in films about the events of the XVI-XVII centuries, when it took several long minutes to charge each pistol (which were still by no means multi-charged), and the recoil was so strong that the arrow would simply tip over on its back .
The only thing that helped to reduce the time intervals between shots in those days was to carry two or four pre-loaded pistols at the same time.
8. Katana - the best sword
Today, thanks to the movie industry, many people are convinced that the coolest sword of all time is the Japanese katana. Even the famous witcher Geralt from Rivia wears a katana (though he uses it like an ordinary saber).
The most relish of the situation is that until the second half of the 20th century no one suspected (except the Japanese themselves) how good it is. Hm ...
Yes, and about the incredible prowess and unsurpassed martial art of the samurai, not a single European either had the slightest idea, despite the fact that, in fact, Europeans - Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, etc. - Not only had constant contacts (and conflicts), but they also traded quite actively with the Japanese since the sixteenth century.
All those "barbarians" (according to the "civilized" Japanese) who had to meet with them in battle, unanimously claimed that samurai love to fight, but do not really know how, and the steel from which their swords are made (yes, very unusual in appearance ), - not the best quality.
But the Japanese sincerely believed that they were especially scary in close combat, and therefore jumped out to meet the enemy (armed with machine guns and machine guns) with katanas at the ready, even during World War II, causing huge losses.
7. The effectiveness of small arms
Again, judging by the movies, the infantry plays the main role in all wars. It inflicts the main damage to the enemy by continuously firing pistols, machine guns and machine guns, regularly hitting precisely the target (well, at least in 50% of cases).
In fact, even in the last war, in which small arms still played a very significant role, in World War I, bullets were “responsible” for only about a quarter of the losses. The rest are the consequences of the use of artillery, air bombs, etc.
After all, the front line is usually located only up to 5% of the enemy’s manpower (it is they who are threatened by bullets). But artillery and aircraft are able to “finish off” to the rear, bringing much more deaths and material losses.
Well, since about the 1970s. (taking into account that small arms are becoming more and more rapid), you need to spend already 40-50 thousand bullets to eliminate only one infantryman. At the same time, a bomb that was successfully dropped on the accumulation of the enemy, will cause him huge damage.
6. The trench warfare
Judging by the numerous films about the wars of the XX century (and even about future military campaigns somewhere on distant planets), - most of the time soldiers sit in the trenches, from time to time making attacks on reconnaissance in neighboring thickets, and in especially heroic moments they jump up one jump and with warlike cries and assault rifles at the ready rush towards the enemy.
This is from the same area as the previous paragraph: they say that the infantry is fighting mainly, and it does the main damage to the enemy.
In fact, firstly, even in the 1940s. infantry rifle units did not exceed 12% of the total number of soldiers and officers in the army.
Secondly, mortars, anti-tank units, etc. are also usually located on the front lines.
Thirdly, the front (oddly enough!) Is constantly moving, so equipping the trenches “as comfortable as possible” makes no sense, because soon you will still have to dig new ones, in a different place.
And fourthly, the army is also engineering units, rear and medical services, cooks, drivers, etc., etc.
5. Useless armor
Quite often we see in pseudo-historical films, and especially in fantasy films, knights who never take off their armor at all (they almost sleep in them).
There are obvious problems with logic, if only because in heavy armor it’s hard to even just sit down, stand up and take a couple of steps (especially when huge spurs flaunt them).
If we also take into account that usually in such a movie any armor easily breaks through not only with the sword, but also with the usual arrow ... So a hero with only one sword and light gets a clear advantage in a battle against a knight in armor.
Oh yes! In fantasy films, there is such a wonderful thing as a female “body armor” (which, in fact, covers just the same part of the body as an ordinary bra). Enchantingly useless item!
Well, in real armor (and even ordinary chain mail), firstly, still in most cases, they saved their masters well from lethal damage, and secondly, they made the enemy’s attacks very predictable, because he either had to deal very strong blows, spending extra power, or carefully aim at the most vulnerable places (articulations of individual fragments of lat).
4. Battle Ax
In most Viking films, every second warrior uses an ax with a long handle in battle, and the coolest guys - hefty berserkers with red beards - a huge double-edged ax.
Now imagine how carefully it is necessary to use such weapons in tight formation or on a narrow deck so that your comrades do not fall under the blow.
In general, battle axes were well known to the Scandinavians, but they were used very rarely.
And by the way: a war hammer in the form of a blunt sledgehammer is also a modern idea of this weapon. In fact, it just resembled a sharp narrow hatchet, capable of not only putting a bruise on the enemy, but also breaking through his armor.
In real life, ordinary Vikings fought, most often with spears and in the ranks, but their label and kung (according to status) with heavy swords.
And one more thing: in battle on axes, not only strength, but also growth is very significant, and therefore the fantasy tradition of arming gnomes with axes looks somewhat strange (for reasons of expediency).
3. The long sword
Another long-standing cinema phenomenon: a wandering noble knight who walks exclusively on foot and is always girded with a sword.
Oh yes! In cinema, knights also quite often wear swords behind their backs in special scabbards, cleverly and instantly removing them if necessary.
But, given that even a short medieval sword reached a length of not less than a meter and was very heavy, then the one and the other way of wearing it, hmm ... not very convenient.
Either he will fight on his feet and drag on the ground, or (in the second case) the knight must grow a very long and strong arm in order to quickly draw a sword from behind and fight with it, as we are shown in fantasy.
By the way, even the swordsmanship techniques themselves appeared far from the Middle Ages, but already at the turn of the 16th-17th centuries. Prior to that, they were exclusively used by equestrian knights (and they attached the scabbard not to their own belt, but to the horse’s saddle).
And they didn’t carry swords with them all the time, but reached the battle (in which they delivered powerful chopping blows with a generally blunt blade). The rest of the time, knights dispensed with daggers.
2. "Irresistible" arrows
Well, firstly, in the cinema, the archer commander must command “Fire!”, Although there is no sign of any fire. Secondly, the generally accepted idea that an experienced medieval archer always shot accurately at a target at a distance of up to 500 meters, and from 200 meters easily penetrated any armor, is also, to put it mildly, hmm ... exaggeration.
In fact, the arrow fell off the bowstring at a speed of a maximum of 50 m / s, moreover, a little at an angle - and this absolutely did not depend on the skill of the shooter. So the experienced archer knew that he would shoot either accurately (trying to adjust the angle of flight of the arrow), or simply very far.
In real life, a short (light) bow was used to hunt small game, and a long and powerful bow was intended mainly for aimless shooting by a canopy. Efficiency, in this case, was more or less justified only if the enemy was shot for a long time and from a fortified position.
By the way, the irresistibility of arrows is a fact refuted by the famous "Legend Destroyers". Literally all testers beat off arrows flying from different distances with a sword perfectly.
And one more thing: aiming a bow from a bow at a gallop is also almost impossible.
1. Attack by the crowd
As we already said at the very beginning, in fantasy films, pseudo-historical, and even in historical paintings, any ancient warriors rush towards the same frenzied crowd of enemies waving formidable weapons.
And this is the most absurd movie myth about the war. Perhaps it was generated by the experience of the wars of the beginning and the middle of the last century, when the infantry had to very quickly cross that dangerous distance to the enemy’s trenches, where there was the least chance of dying from a bullet or a fragment of a shell.
But actually, before that, since ancient times, warriors went on the attack, most often, in tight formation and not really in a hurry.
Firstly, to run fast in heavy equipment, with a long spear, and even with a huge shield - is not very convenient (and why waste your energy?).
Secondly, walking in the phalanx or in a square, you can not be afraid for your back and not look back in anticipation of a dangerous enemy coming from the rear.
But just a fighter, torn off in the heat of battle from his comrades, often died quickly, surrounded by enemies.