History as Entertainment

[Saffron]

Okay, I started a new thread so as not to distract from the discussion of Battle 360 in particular ... just in case anyone wishes to continue the topic. I'm going to address all the posts in one response, so I may not remember who said what in the other thread. Bear with me. :)

To NWS:

I agree that historical accuracy is important, however, the plague of all educators is time. Every second must be weighed in terms of how that second should be used. I would enjoy nothing more than to point out that the Vincennes is not a heavy frigate but a heavy cruiser and explain the differences, but that time often has to be used to make sure the students understand the overall battle, how it affected the war in general, and why the action was important. Now ... if I could convince the school board to let me teach a class on naval history with an emphasis on WWII, that would be another story altogether.

What a lot of adults often forget ... including other educators ... is that you can never take for granted what the kids know. There might be one kid in the room that will immediately announce, "Hey! The Vincennes isn't a frigate!!" and see the error right off. However, the other 29 kids might only understand all of WWII as an abstract concept (Yeah, we fought the Japanese and Germans. Hitler was a bad guy. We won.) Remember that I have to teach this within the context of the entire war, and I have to teach the war within the context of American history ... all 500+ years of it, all in a measly 180 hours. You can imagine my frustration when I want to spend several class periods teaching the kids about BBs, CAs, CLs, DDs, DDEs, SSs, and the history of individual ships and how they faught but knowing there's no time. All I can do is sneak in tidbits when I think I can get away with it. :cool:



2) However, I dare say that the greater majority of educators also do not possess a sufficient level of knowledge of naval warfare of this period to notice these errors as well (Saffron being an exception to this rule :)) --


This is very true ... and I'm always lambasting my colleagues for passing on inaccurate information to their students. I think the most dreaded words my fellow history teachers hear from me are, "Well .... you realize, of course, that that's not entirely accurate ..." Look at naval history specifically, the lack of interest in such a niche topic usually means it is assigned a very low priority by those above me in the educational food chain. They would ask the question, "Is it necessary for these kids to know the difference between a heavy cruiser and a frigate for them to understand WWII?" While naval buffs such as ourselves might scream, "YES!" I can guarantee you'll never convince them. I was even scolded once for trying to teach the kids about individual generals and their strategies in the Civil War, being told that it was unnecessary detail.



As Saffron also pointed out: the more positive exposure the general public has to these types of shows the more likely our favorite hobby (and business for some of us :)) will keep going, or even improve.


While I can't teach the details of naval combat in WWII, what I can do is make sure they're exposed to it ... and in such a way that just maybe they become fanatics, too. Most won't ... they're too busy with oggling their favorite sports heroes ... but some will. Look at it this way: I'm trying to create your next customers!!



I typically only get really annoyed when something totally misleading or down right wrong is reported to have happened.


Exactly my feeling on it. If a show has glaring errors, I won't even show it, and I'm pretty persnickity about that. However, one of my favorite assignments to give (the kids like it too) is for me to show a documentary and have the kids research the event and find the errors themselves. In this case, a show with errors makes my job easier. Kids love nothing more than to correct authority figures.

[Kyle Holgate]

Some of the big mistakes or maybe misconceptions I continue to hear: The Bismarck was the most powerful battleship ever built!
The Iowa was the biggest battleship.
The Japanese frequenly crashed their planes into US ships and bases frequently - throughout the war.
The Japanese never surrendered.
The Japanese had the best fighter plane until 1943 or so.

To list just a few. I suppose in the context of History none of these really matter much and someone can get a good grasp on what happened whether these little mistakes were corrected or not.
Personally I'm of the view that it wouldn't hurt to mention some things like how many millions Stalin had killed - and we still allied with him. Made me think a bit when I found out (in High school)!
It would also be good for more to know how a democracy like Italy and Germany turned into the states they bacame.

Anyhow - my 2 cents.

[old_pop2000]

Saffron:

Good thread to start. History, as I probably don't have to tell you, is not just a list of facts, and dates. It is living, it is ephemeral. Our perception of history and our knowledge changes with each generation. Over the last 20 or 30 years, as new documents and data have been declassified, or compiled, we have learned so much more about different aspects of the historical past.

But my problem with the education system and the educators is the lack of instruction on historiography and research. The lack of instruction on how to analyze, how to discover facts and develop ideas, how to test theories etc. This is what history is all about. Asking questions, examine facts, investigating, reading maps (I am a big one on reading the map) etc.

I agree that historical accuracy is important and that time is short. But if I can teach a person how to investigate history or any subject, I can leave him with a problem in history and he will have tools to use forever, to read, understand and use historical research in his life. If I teach a child how to research history, at some point, he can investigate the history of the Middle East and may understand more about why there problems in the region.

I've always wondered if educators sometimes, look down on parents in the area of education. Possibly, they feel that they are the only ones who have the training and knowledge to adequately teach their children. I believe that is a great misguided idea. Maybe what educators need to do, is see if the parents can assist the students. Is there something the parents are knowledgeable in, say history, and can provide some more background information to the teacher and the class. I've always believed the education of our young adults was everyone's job.

I was in the San Diego Air and Space Museum with my wife once, and once I got to the section on the aircraft of WWII, I had a two groups of kids in classes, with their teachers following me, listening to my explanations to my wife. My wife, has always said, that I should be a docent, to teach the kids, my knowledge of aircraft and WWII aviation. Maybe more people of my generation, should get involved in teaching the young, to help teachers.

I agree about some programs, there are glaring errors in fundamental facts, that are hard to reconcile. A simple check in the encyclopedia can correct the errors, so it makes one wonder who is providing the research on these programs.

Anyway, that is my take. Keep it up and don't get discouraged. Maybe, over time, with educators like yourself getting involved, the system will change and documentaries will be submitted to educators for approval before airing.

[Kyle Holgate]

I think some movies aught to be gone over for historical accuracy too. Pearl Harbor comes to mind - it could have been made historically much more accurate even while keeping the same (stupid) story. Titanic in contrast did a fairly good job with what they knew and theorized happened to the ship. Guess mainly you have to be sure people know where movies diverge from history and where not. I do like that the History Channel often puts out historical documentaries about subject matter about the same time movies come out. The 300, 10,000BC, etc.

[Saffron]

Kyle:

Some of the big inaccuracies I hear all the time:
1. America declared war on Germany over the Holocaust.
2. America goaded the Japanese to declare war by starving them with embargos.
3. America was the only country that bombed cities.
4. The Sherman tank was the best tank of the war.
5. America had Iowa BBs, P-51s, Essex CVs and other later-war weapons in 1941.


But my problem with the education system and the educators is the lack of instruction on historiography and research. The lack of instruction on how to analyze, how to discover facts and develop ideas, how to test theories etc.

Old_Pop:

I definitely have to agree with you here, I'm sorry to say. Critical thinking and analytical skills have really gone down hill over the years. People rarely cross-reference facts and instead believe whatever facts they are first exposed to, even if later facts come along to dispute the original set. I'll avoid talking politics in relation to education (a very difficult thing to do), but part of that comes from the "teach the test" mentality that has permeated the field of education in recent years. One does not analyze, test, or form theories on a standardized test. It's rote learning and regurgitation of facts. A standardized test provides no context for those facts, so most of those facts disappear right out of a person's head even before they're done filling in the bubble. It lends the horrific impression that the purpose of those facts is to pass a test and are no longer needed once the test is complete.

If I teach a child how to research history, at some point, he can investigate the history of the Middle East and may understand more about why there problems in the region.
Once again, I agree. One of the biggest obstacles a history teacher faces is overcoming the stereotype that history is boring, and let's be honest, a lot of history teachers *are* boring. This is where shows like Battle 360 come into play. These types of documentaries can do more to excite a student about history than all the old documentaries with black & white footage and monotone British narrators in the world combined. Documentaries aren't my only tool, of course, but if I'm going to begin talking about the PTO, a show like Battle 360 is an excellent "foot wetter."


I've always wondered if educators sometimes, look down on parents in the area of education.

This is a really sticky musing, to be honest. I can't speak for all educators, so I'll only go with my own experiences. Most parents seem to stay out of the education business, and that can be both good and bad depending on the parent. Unfortunately, it is often the most active parents who are perceived as enemies to teachers ... those who try to get books banned, those who demand that you teach a biased point of view, those that mire themselves in the ID vs. Evolution debates, etc. They seem less interested in education and more interested in getting their politics taught in school as unquestionable dogma.

As an example, I had a minor tiff with a parent who demanded to know why I wasn't teaching her son that dropping the A-bombs on Japan was morally wrong. I told her flat out that it wasn't my job to teach right and wrong from a historical perspective. It's my job to present all sides of the issue. It's your son's job to decide for himself whether those bombs should've been used.


Anyway, that is my take. Keep it up and don't get discouraged. Maybe, over time, with educators like yourself getting involved, the system will change and documentaries will be submitted to educators for approval before airing.

Thanks for the encouragement ... and yes, that would be wonderful if some of these shows were filtered through educators before they were aired. While I consider shows like Battle 360 to be beneficial, I also think that this ought to be the limit of history-turned-education. If we go beyond this, we may as well show the Pearl Harbor movie as a factual account.

Pearl Harbor comes to mind
Kyle, I'm curious. Aside from some obvious problems ... like inserting fictitious characters into a real event and making them the heroes (there were plenty of real heroes in WWII without inventing them), and of course the fact that no P-40s even got off the ground much less shot down Zeros (wasn't some obsolete aircraft like a Brewster Buffalo responsible for the only air-to-air victory in PH?) ... what kind of inaccuracies did you see in the PH movie?

[old_pop2000]

Kyle, I'm curious. Aside from some obvious problems ... like inserting fictitious characters into a real event and making them the heroes (there were plenty of real heroes in WWII without inventing them), and of course the fact that no P-40s even got off the ground much less shot down Zeros (wasn't some obsolete aircraft like a Brewster Buffalo responsible for the only air-to-air victory in PH?) ... what kind of inaccuracies did you see in the PH movie?

Hi Saffron:
Actually, 20 P-40's and P-35's did get off the ground, accounting for six enemy aircraft. George Welch and Ken Taylor had two P-40's at Haleiwa, moved in early December from Wheeler Field. It took nine minutes to get to the field, being strafed most of the way, but they did get airborne.

Piece of history about the commencement of the attack. The leader of the Japanese strike group, Commander Mitsuo Fuchida, was to signal with one "black Dragon" flare to Lt. Commander Murata of the torpedo bombers, to start the attack first, if surprise had been achieved. This was accomplished and the bombers changed to a line astern to commence the attack, while the high level bombers would go in second, then the dive bombers third. After the first flare, Fuchida determined that Lt. Itaya leading the fighters possibly did not see the flare which directed them to attack the fighters on Wheeler and Hickam field. He then fired another "black dragon" flare to notify Itaya to commence his attack. Unfortunately, Lt. Commander Takahashi leading the dive bombers saw two flares, which was the prearranged signal for the dive bombers to go in first an indication there was no surprise. So, all the attack aircraft began their attacks at the same time. This was completely against the plan and the original orders. So, the Japanese attack was actually a mistake in technique.

Now that I've bored you, I will shut up.

[Warship NWS]

Kyle, I'm curious. Aside from some obvious problems ... like inserting fictitious characters into a real event and making them the heroes (there were plenty of real heroes in WWII without inventing them), and of course the fact that no P-40s even got off the ground much less shot down Zeros (wasn't some obsolete aircraft like a Brewster Buffalo responsible for the only air-to-air victory in PH?) ... what kind of inaccuracies did you see in the PH movie?


There were no Brewster Buffalos at Pearl Harbor.. only P-36s and P-40s. The USN used the F2A for a short time with squardons VF-2 (operated with the Saratoga) and VF-3 but they proved to have too weak of landing gear and were replaced by the F4F-3. Only the USMC VS-201 squadron used the F2A in combat at Midway. The Marines did not have any squadrons, that I can recall, at Pearl Harbor.

Actually the movie Pearl Harbor is a great indicator of how backwards our history vs entertainment priorities have become in modern society especially when compared to a far more realistic movie such as "Tora, Tora, Tora". Why else would they turn a grim event in our 1940s history into a modern day soap opera? At least in "Titanic" they kept to the facts as much as possible and made it quite clear that the characters were fictitious but the characters at least added to an already very sad event without detracting from the historical backdrop of the time frame. "Saving Private Ryan" I thought was a great concept, even though it was partially flawed in the undertaking of a squad finding one man after D-Day. The battle scenes were quite well done and gave a very good indication of why war was hell on those who fought in it. There were some errors in the movie in terms of perception and tactics but nothing so grave that a newcomer to history could not pull something of value from the movie. Two very good movies that were made in the 1960s-1970s were "A Bridge Too Far" and "Battle of Britain".. both very educational as the producers did what they could to stick with the facts of what took place. There were a few minor errors in them.. but again, nothing that would detract from their historical background in a major way.

The above is just to give some level of comparisons when producers weighed historical accuracy vs entertainment.


Actually, 20 P-40's and P-35's did get off the ground, accounting for six enemy aircraft. George Welch and Ken Taylor had two P-40's at Haleiwa, moved in early December from Wheeler Field. It took nine minutes to get to the field, being strafed most of the way, but they did get airborne.

To Dennis, those were not P-35s.. they were P-36 Hawks, 5 took off and claimed 2 A6M2 victories.

[Warship NWS]

To Saffron,

I will personaly commend you for forcing the students to do something beyond just watching a show about history.. your making them open their books to actually use their brains to research what they saw. Unfortunately, many will never do that.

The terrible irony of our present day and age is that with all of the new information coming to light through improved investigative technologies and unclassified documents our overall society IQ regarding historical accuracy has still dropped several notches over the past few decades.

Looking at shows as "factual" without validated evidence is also apparent in various sectors of the gaming industry as well where entertainment has been prioritized over historical accuracy. A game developer will be looked at as a god if they make a game that is more "fun" then accurate. Rather then judging the accuracy of their research used for the game it will judged soley on the entertainment value as an example. I have seen this happen many times as the "bar" used to be competed with by developers for accuracy .. now, as has happened with movies, it is more about how much money is made per game and how pretty the graphics are, or in terms of movies the "special effects", or how "dramatic" the movie is with unrealistic human responses..

Thanks.

[asnrobert]

A couple observations:

Educators vs parents:

My parents taught me to read before I started school. One day during kindergarten (this was 1969-70) we had 'free time' where we could draw, paint, etc. Instead I wrote down my ABCs and the numbers 1 thru 10. My teachers (the school had a "team teaching" setup at the time) were shocked- they asked me where I learned to read and I told them. Later I found out they had told my parents had a parent-teacher conference that it "wasn't their job" to teach me! Thankfully my mom and dad ignored them. Of course, this was in a school in New Jersey, so what do you expect? When I started first grade we were still doing kindergarten stuff- a month or so into the school year we moved back to NY and my schoolwork involved reading/writing and math (and I actually brought home homework, unlike before).

Dennis mentioned fact checking using encyclopedias. However, even they get it wrong from time to time. I came across one that referred to the later WW2 US heavy cruisers as battlecruisers.

Games:

A while back on another forum, someone was raving about the new Battlestations Midway game on the XBox/Playstation/whatevever (I must admit to being biased against console games as they seem to cater to the clickfest crowd, although it seems PC games tend that way too) and in his review of the game mentioned the availabliity of the Iowa class. I pointed out that the Iowas weren't even in the water at the time of Midway, and suggested the game probably had other historical inaccuracies too. The guy's feathers were ruffled and stated "not all games suck." I said I agreed not all games sucked, as a matter of fact there were good ones out there, like Fighting Steel, and WCDB (of course! :D ), but that appaently too many game designers were more interested in click-fests and fancy graphics than historical accuracy.

[Warship NWS]

Games:

A while back on another forum, someone was raving about the new Battlestations Midway game on the XBox/Playstation/whatevever (I must admit to being biased against console games as they seem to cater to the clickfest crowd, although it seems PC games tend that way too) and in his review of the game mentioned the availabliity of the Iowa class. I pointed out that the Iowas weren't even in the water at the time of Midway, and suggested the game probably had other historical inaccuracies too. The guy's feathers were ruffled and stated "not all games suck." I said I agreed not all games sucked, as a matter of fact there were good ones out there, like Fighting Steel, and WCDB (of course! :D ), but that appaently too many game designers were more interested in click-fests and fancy graphics than historical accuracy.

I have one worse for you.. Battlefield 1942 has the KGV operating at Midway. ;) For that matter, the only BB in the game is KGV. In any case, its a FPS/MP game that I play just for the sake of blowing **** up... nothing more. Ironically however, my nephew recognizes the aircraft and small arms when he goes to airshows with military displays.. example the Garand, BAR, .45, Sherman tank, Jeep, Half Track, AK47s, M-16s, M-14s, UH-1, MP-43, MG-42, F4F Wildcat, SBD, Zero, Patrol Boats, etc.. he recognizes from playing the Battlefield series.. and he is only 8... so there is some good that comes out of it. ;) Battlestations Midway was just another shot at the FPS Battlefield type genre.

I agree though.. the average gamer just wants to have fun no matter how inaccurate a game is in terms of historical accuracy. The BAD part of this is that they get road blocks in their minds against anything that is historically accurate as it was not as much "fun" remembering the facts shown in accurate wargames and thus their educational level of historical accuracy is stagnated or depleted over time.

I have always had a comparison analogy between fun vs educational, simple vs challenging, and pretty vs practical.. take chess and checkers. No matter how much you pretty up the pieces for chess it is a mind cracking game of thought - if you intend to be any good at the game at all. Checkers is FAR more simple to play and thus FAR more popular. When wargames try to reduce a chess game to checkers all of the reasons for making the game in the first place are erroded away for the sake of easier playability.

Now I have no issue with more playable games.. however, far too many use and abuse the terms of "realistic", "detailed", "accurate", etc.. even though about the only thing that is somewhat accurate about many of them is the 3D models of the combat units. The problem is the impression given that they are "historically realistic" thus giving false impressions about what the authenticity of their research - if any was involved at all, this goes especially true when you start seeing "health bars". This would be like believing CNN over the History or Military Channel. It is bad enough CNN has to put up a Google map for every country in the world as most don't even know where half the countries are in our great world even though Atlases and the internet provide such information instantly... however, geography itself is a lost art. Hell no class I ever took taught geography to any responsible degree and social studies classes were a sick joke.. I took it upon myself to be interested in maps and history.

A major problem with our present day society is that in the USA the typical kid has less education then many 3rd world country children and we have pushed the idea that it is "not what you know but who you know" mentality and in turn kids will kiss ass (or cheat) to achieve some level of society measure of success rather then kick ass with their minds. Note this is not a political commentary but a personal observation.

Thanks.

[Warship NWS]

Some of the big mistakes or maybe misconceptions I continue to hear: The Bismarck was the most powerful battleship ever built!
The Iowa was the biggest battleship.
The Japanese frequenly crashed their planes into US ships and bases frequently - throughout the war.
The Japanese never surrendered.
The Japanese had the best fighter plane until 1943 or so.

My all time favorite is when I hear that the Yamato should defeat the Iowa every time or that the Yamato was the best battleship ever built.

I have had to educate a few "gamers" on their inaccurate assumptions regarding these two mighty warships several times. ;)

Thanks.

[Warship NWS]

What a lot of adults often forget ... including other educators ... is that you can never take for granted what the kids know. There might be one kid in the room that will immediately announce, "Hey! The Vincennes isn't a frigate!!" and see the error right off. However, the other 29 kids might only understand all of WWII as an abstract concept (Yeah, we fought the Japanese and Germans. Hitler was a bad guy. We won.) Remember that I have to teach this within the context of the entire war, and I have to teach the war within the context of American history ... all 500+ years of it, all in a measly 180 hours. You can imagine my frustration when I want to spend several class periods teaching the kids about BBs, CAs, CLs, DDs, DDEs, SSs, and the history of individual ships and how they faught but knowing there's no time. All I can do is sneak in tidbits when I think I can get away with it. :cool:


Part of the problem I see here is the level of information being disseminated to the class room. Studying military history requires a bit more then just a general education of world history IMHO. Warfare is a very complex subject matter that goes beyond dates and places for a proper understanding of the events. Few schools teach military history except for military services or academies. Ironically, there is a lot to be learned about human nature, politics/warfare, the art of logical strategic thinking, etc. through studying warfare and how the world has changed due to military events. To me there are 3 general levels of education regarding military topics,

a) The historians -- they give you the when and where events took place.
b) The researchers -- they will give you how and why the events took place.
c) The analysts -- they will give you the in depth knowledge of the weapons that fought the engagements and how they interacted with each other in combat.

Most schools go to the first level (a) of reading materials but almost never to the level of (b) research levels unless a student is taking a dedicated course in military history. Level (c) is nearly non-existent in typical school systems unless your specializing in military analysis or have a serious interest in learning about military weaponry and their applications in warfare.

Now, the levels I just described above can stop at level (a) if your teaching social studies, general history, etc.. however, many mainstream games don't even reach that level of educational quality from their designs.. some reach level (b).. damn few reach level (c). Around 10-20 years ago the simulation/wargaming industry, of which had more access to the mainstream market, was actually at level (b) to a far greater degree then what has occurred recently. The independent wargaming community is fortunately still holding around level (b), however the mainstream industry is barely pushing level (a).. if at all in general in the present market.

Another problem is the media that is found at most book stores.. most are level (a) at best and mostly copies of other general purpose references. Level (b) can be found if the person does their homework and has some idea of what to buy. Level (c) is extremely hard to find except for rare specialized materials that are covered by professional military researchers or analysts.

Now.. the TV/movie/documentary media.. forget about anything above level (a) on mainstream TV. Movies might hit level (b) on rare occasion if the producers and directors push hard for historical accuracy. Specialized channels on cable such as the Military Channel and the History Channel are your best bets on TV at this time.. History Channel covers (a) mostly and (b) sometimes. The Military Channel has, IMHO, better overall shows that cover (b) more often. Level (c) on any video media is almost non-existent.

Now where does this all leave the educational system? Good question and much depends on the country your referring to. How do we help bring in fresh minds into this genre? Starting simple and working up is fine.. so long as accuracy is considered a responsibility based on the level of education you are working at and hopefully the materials are being kept up to reasonable date with present available information. I think educators should also remind students to keep their minds open to new and more reliable information as well and not get stagnated with one authors perception of historical events. Cross referencing materials and deductive reasoning are other traits often not taught to students presently IMHO.

Thanks.

[Saffron]

Part of the problem I see here is the level of information being disseminated to the class room. Studying military history requires a bit more then just a general education of world history IMHO. Warfare is a very complex subject matter that goes beyond dates and places for a proper understanding of the events.


All too true. I should emphasize that I'm stuck with teaching only general US history, which is essentially divided into two parts: Columbus to post-Civil War Reconstruction in the first year and from Reconstruction to the present day in the second. Unlike other disciplines, history is one of the few that constantly needs updating. For instance, a person who spends 30 years teaching has 30 more years of history to teach beginning on his/her 31st year, yet the time we have to teach it remains constant. Most teachers these days are barely touching Vietnam when June rolls around. We either need to add an extra year (from 1945 to the present) or we need specialized classes.

Another issue that heavily dampens the teaching of warfare is, quite frankly, politics. It's almost impossible to talk about education without politics rearing its hydra-head, and in this case, the massive push for multi-culturalism is trumping standard history. Since this problem is highly political, I won't delve into it as much as I'd like to, but suffice it to say that this is the crux of everything wrong with what is taught.



Most schools go to the first level (a) of reading materials but almost never to the level of (b) research levels unless a student is taking a dedicated course in military history.


Some schools do teach this. I was fortunate to have attended one, and I definitely took the class. However, by the time I took it, I already knew at least as much as the teacher, so I didn't learn that much (others who have never been exposed to it, however, probably learned a great deal).


Level (c) is nearly non-existent in typical school systems unless your specializing in military analysis or have a serious interest in learning about military weaponry and their applications in warfare.

Again, welcome to the wonderful world of politics. Teach warfare?!?! My darling angels are learning about WEAPONS?!!?! I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.


however, many mainstream games don't even reach that level of educational quality from their designs.. some reach level (b).. damn few reach level (c)

I can't help but admit that, when I watch Dogfights or Battle 360, I find myself wishing there was a game that looked like the shows but played like WCDB or NAW. I've always said that if I ever win the lottery, prepare yourselves, boys, because I'd fund NWS to make such a game. I wouldn't think twice. I'd even take some graphic design classes and spend my early retirement making models for the game. :D Ahh, but to dream ...

I agree with you, though. I haven't bought an off-the-shelf wargame in a very long time. They just don't have the depth, much less accuracy, of NWS games.

The gaming industry has become big business, and like any niche market that suddenly realizes its potential, it's primary concern is to get as many people as possible playing their games. I don't think I even need to say what inevitably follows.

Documentaries are following the same pattern. TLC and Discovery have already been taken over by the "least common denomenator" crowd, Discovery Times has dedicated itself to crime shows, and the History Channel is airing as many "Reality" type shows as real history ... Iceroad Truckers, the show about clam fishing off the coast of Alaska (Deadliest Catch or some such), now it's Axmen, etc. etc. I enjoy Universe, but it belongs on the Science Channel. ;)

[Warship NWS]

I can't help but admit that, when I watch Dogfights or Battle 360, I find myself wishing there was a game that looked like the shows but played like WCDB or NAW. I've always said that if I ever win the lottery, prepare yourselves, boys, because I'd fund NWS to make such a game. I wouldn't think twice. I'd even take some graphic design classes and spend my early retirement making models for the game. :D Ahh, but to dream ...


Personally, I prefer not to have fancy 3D graphics in our designs. Even though we could budget such work I am the primary person against it on our team. I would much rather concentrate on in depth and authentic combat mechanics and comprehensive educational designs then concern ourselves with fancy 3D graphics.

[Warship NWS]

Documentaries are following the same pattern. TLC and Discovery have already been taken over by the "least common denomenator" crowd, Discovery Times has dedicated itself to crime shows, and the History Channel is airing as many "Reality" type shows as real history ... Iceroad Truckers, the show about clam fishing off the coast of Alaska (Deadliest Catch or some such), now it's Axmen, etc. etc. I enjoy Universe, but it belongs on the Science Channel. ;)

Personaly I prefer the Military Channel, operated by the Discover network. Their selection of shows are pretty good and some are quite well done.

[Citadelvette]

Saffron,

I just what to thanks to you and all the educators who try teach the facts as best they can and in an unbiased apolitcal way. As one of those few students who gets turned into a fanatic, having been fortunate to have been taught by such quality educators, and now moving into history as a profession I know how important the work you do is. I can remember back to high school sitting in classes with people who thought history and geography were boring, unimportant, and stupid and probalby couldn't find Tennessee on a map with labels (I'm from Kentucky) and how I realized we didn't learn about many events because of politics both of the government and those "active" parents you mentioned. I mean, I learned about the 300+ years of Indian conflicts, the Mexican & Spanish-American Wars and other topics by watching educational TV and reading any books I could find, because the system (ran by these parents) wanted us taught that America has always been peacefual and tolerant of everyone and that the natives invited us here after meeting explorers, but we were lucky to have educators like Saffron who helped me find those books. Looking back to whats really only a few years and experiencing the evironment of my college classes where everyone is passionate about history and debates are firece, high school seems so alien. All I really what to say is thanks for doing what you do because you really are making a difference, Thank You.

[asnrobert]

I have one worse for you.. Battlefield 1942 has the KGV operating at Midway. ;) For that matter, the only BB in the game is KGV. In any case, its a FPS/MP game that I play just for the sake of blowing **** up... nothing more. Ironically however, my nephew recognizes the aircraft and small arms when he goes to airshows with military displays.. example the Garand, BAR, .45, Sherman tank, Jeep, Half Track, AK47s, M-16s, M-14s, UH-1, MP-43, MG-42, F4F Wildcat, SBD, Zero, Patrol Boats, etc.. he recognizes from playing the Battlefield series.. and he is only 8... so there is some good that comes out of it. ;) Battlestations Midway was just another shot at the FPS Battlefield type genre.


I have BF1942 and know what you mean. The Wake Island map gives both sides tanks (which neither had), and both sides have bazookas (which didn't even exist at the time). As a matter of fact, the Japanese use the German panzerschreck, which brings me to another pet peeve of the game: the weapons in the game (with the exception of some tanks and a/c) are basically American or German. Where's the Arisaka, the PPSHK41, the Lee-Enfield, or the Sten? Shucks, they don't even have the M1 Garand. One thing I liked about Battlefield Vietnam (the next in the series) was that the weapons were modeled a little bit better.

[Warship NWS]

I have BF1942 and know what you mean. The Wake Island map gives both sides tanks (which neither had), and both sides have bazookas (which didn't even exist at the time). As a matter of fact, the Japanese use the German panzerschreck, which brings me to another pet peeve of the game: the weapons in the game (with the exception of some tanks and a/c) are basically American or German. Where's the Arisaka, the PPSHK41, the Lee-Enfield, or the Sten? Shucks, they don't even have the M1 Garand. One thing I liked about Battlefield Vietnam (the next in the series) was that the weapons were modeled a little bit better.

Actually BF1942 does have the Sten gun and M1 Garand in it.. and various other foreign weapons in the expansions. ;)

[asnrobert]

Actually BF1942 does have the Sten gun and M1 Garand in it.. and various other foreign weapons in the expansions. ;)


Ah... I don't have the expansions. Can you download them for free or to do you have to pay for them?

[Warship NWS]

Ah... I don't have the expansions. Can you download them for free or to do you have to pay for them?

You have to pay for them. But they are pretty cheap now. ;)

[keschofield]

Saffron,

I don't post much anymore either, but please let me take this opportunity to thank you for sticking with teaching. I know how tough the job is so you are to be commended. I was trained as a teacher many, many years ago. I have also worked as a substitute. The classroom is a tough environment and I'm glad that there are still a few dedicated people like you there.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Okay, I started a new thread so as not to distract from the discussion of Battle 360 in particular ... just in case anyone wishes to continue the topic. I'm going to address all the posts in one response, so I may not remember who said what in the other thread. Bear with me. :)

To NWS:

I agree that historical accuracy is important, however, the plague of all educators is time. Every second must be weighed in terms of how that second should be used. I would enjoy nothing more than to point out that the Vincennes is not a heavy frigate but a heavy cruiser and explain the differences, but that time often has to be used to make sure the students understand the overall battle, how it affected the war in general, and why the action was important. Now ... if I could convince the school board to let me teach a class on naval history with an emphasis on WWII, that would be another story altogether.

What a lot of adults often forget ... including other educators ... is that you can never take for granted what the kids know. There might be one kid in the room that will immediately announce, "Hey! The Vincennes isn't a frigate!!" and see the error right off. However, the other 29 kids might only understand all of WWII as an abstract concept (Yeah, we fought the Japanese and Germans. Hitler was a bad guy. We won.) Remember that I have to teach this within the context of the entire war, and I have to teach the war within the context of American history ... all 500+ years of it, all in a measly 180 hours. You can imagine my frustration when I want to spend several class periods teaching the kids about BBs, CAs, CLs, DDs, DDEs, SSs, and the history of individual ships and how they faught but knowing there's no time. All I can do is sneak in tidbits when I think I can get away with it. :cool:



This is very true ... and I'm always lambasting my colleagues for passing on inaccurate information to their students. I think the most dreaded words my fellow history teachers hear from me are, "Well .... you realize, of course, that that's not entirely accurate ..." Look at naval history specifically, the lack of interest in such a niche topic usually means it is assigned a very low priority by those above me in the educational food chain. They would ask the question, "Is it necessary for these kids to know the difference between a heavy cruiser and a frigate for them to understand WWII?" While naval buffs such as ourselves might scream, "YES!" I can guarantee you'll never convince them. I was even scolded once for trying to teach the kids about individual generals and their strategies in the Civil War, being told that it was unnecessary detail.



While I can't teach the details of naval combat in WWII, what I can do is make sure they're exposed to it ... and in such a way that just maybe they become fanatics, too. Most won't ... they're too busy with oggling their favorite sports heroes ... but some will. Look at it this way: I'm trying to create your next customers!!



Exactly my feeling on it. If a show has glaring errors, I won't even show it, and I'm pretty persnickity about that. However, one of my favorite assignments to give (the kids like it too) is for me to show a documentary and have the kids research the event and find the errors themselves. In this case, a show with errors makes my job easier. Kids love nothing more than to correct authority figures.

Hi Saffy:

First off a tip of the hat to any teacher that believes history is worth teaching. As a history major in college I always appreciated the details and the passion that my professors brought to the subject.

I am a little surprised at the level of errors one sees on the History Channel. They have the resources to do a better job of fact checking than one sees. Most of the commentators that they have on are usually top notch (Richard Frank, Norman Friedman, Eric Grove come to mind). When they aired the series "Tales of the Gun", they had firearms experts from magazines and museums who made sure the data was correct.

Regarding military history, that is something that most people get an interest in while young. My 10 year has a keen interest in it mainly because of my extensive library. He has a few juvenile books on military history and asks me questions frequently. His younger brother is more interested in firearms (mainly due to the Discovery Channel's "Future Weapons"). Whether they will still have an interest in these subjects as they become teenagers is up in the air. They certainly will be exposed to it while living under the same roof with me, that's for sure.

One thing that is encouraging is that movies on history have been far more popular than Hollywood originally thought. People like history when it is presented in an intelligent manner. Case in point "Saving Private Ryan", "Gettysburg" and "Band of Brothers". All protrayed war in its stark ugliness and tried to be as accurate as possible. It's when the entertainment industry sticks needless side plots in that the effort fails. Witness that lame movie "Pearl Harbor". History is compelling enough without changing it.

Naval history is as William mentioned more of a niche subject compared to general military history, but you wouldn't know it from the number of specialized books on the subject that are available. (Just ask my wife about my buying habits LOL!) In this country the Civil War is probably the most written about military topic whereas in the UK it would be the Napoleonic Wars. I do wonder if certain nations venerate military history more than the US does. I can certainly make the case that the British are proud of the military traditions and try to keep the knowledge alive.

In closing, I would say that the best we can hope to do is spark interest in the subject. If a show or movie does that, then the student can pursue the subject in as much depth as they want. I think that the History Channel would be better served if it listed books for the viewer to read if they wanted more information on the subject in question.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I think some movies aught to be gone over for historical accuracy too. Pearl Harbor comes to mind - it could have been made historically much more accurate even while keeping the same (stupid) story. Titanic in contrast did a fairly good job with what they knew and theorized happened to the ship. Guess mainly you have to be sure people know where movies diverge from history and where not. I do like that the History Channel often puts out historical documentaries about subject matter about the same time movies come out. The 300, 10,000BC, etc.

Kyle:

Titanic was a good example of entertainment with historical accuracy. I believe that was due to the director's passion for the subject.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Kyle, I'm curious. Aside from some obvious problems ... like inserting fictitious characters into a real event and making them the heroes (there were plenty of real heroes in WWII without inventing them), and of course the fact that no P-40s even got off the ground much less shot down Zeros (wasn't some obsolete aircraft like a Brewster Buffalo responsible for the only air-to-air victory in PH?) ... what kind of inaccuracies did you see in the PH movie?

Saffy:

Let's not forget the modern US DDs that were standing in for WWII era ships LOL! When you see how accurate the battleship models were, why skimp on the other details? In "Flags of Our Fathers" Clint Eastwood made sure the ships and planes were accurate for the time period. Of course CGI has advanced greatly since the Pearl Harbor movie was made.

[john964]

Saffy:

Let's not forget the modern US DDs that were standing in for WWII era ships LOL! When you see how accurate the battleship models were, why skimp on the other details? In "Flags of Our Fathers" Clint Eastwood made sure the ships and planes were accurate for the time period. Of course CGI has advanced greatly since the Pearl Harbor movie was made.What some forget when the original PH movie Tora Tora Tora the movie producers had the advantage that WWII era ships were still on active duty (Fletchers and Sumner)and some of the newer ones looked like they could be WWII era (Forrest Sherrman and C F Adams)

[Warship NWS]

What some forget when the original PH movie Tora Tora Tora the movie producers had the advantage that WWII era ships were still on active duty (Fletchers and Sumner)and some of the newer ones looked like they could be WWII era (Forrest Sherrman and C F Adams)

I would excuse them IF (a) we did not have CGA capability like what they used to model the original battleship line, and believe me there are LOTS of graphics of old WW2 DDs floating around out there, and (b) they had not spent buckets of cash on the soap opera garbage in the movie and (c) they had not spent the special effects money on the silly Zekes flying after the P-40s all over Pearl Harbor which did not happen.

Thanks.

[Kyle Holgate]

Pearl harbor irked me in that it 'could' have been like Titanic in a lot of ways - historically accurate outside the soap opera parts with the fictional characters. Private Ryan was a good example of a movie that got most everything right - even though the individuals and situation itself with finding Ryan was fictional.
It's been a while since I saw Pearl Harbor (and am not likely to see it again!) - but it got a lot wrong. I believe the carrier planes were shown flying at low altitude (for dramatic effect I suppose) and the bombing scenes were inaccurate (again, going by some memories a few years old here!). Then there are the apparently bombs dopped on modern (well, post 1940) ships. Finally as Chris points out - the crap with the P-40's zipping around shooting down Japanese aircraft. UG! Go watch Hogans Heroes re-runs! At least there they didn't act like they were attempting anything more than entertainment. With PH - the impression people get is that they were doing something historically accurate around the fictional characters.

Tora Tora Tora is the movie to watch. Pretty accurate where it counts.