Useless programmes on TV

Site Issues 2005 Archive Room
#1

I was just watching a programme on Discovery Civilisation about firearms. The mistakes were so terrible in it that it was painful to watch. Not only the factual mistakes, but also the narrator’s pronunciation, e.g. pronouncing Karabiner as Karabainer and Gewehr as Gewwer :expressionless:

Anyway, mistakes included:

*Saying the Lee-Metford was for cordite (it was black powder)
*Getting the adoption dates of the Lee-Enfield and SMLE wrong, and not differentiating between the two
*Saying that the higher temperatures of cordite was why we adopted the smaller .303" cartridge
*Confusing the Enfield Pattern 14 and the SMLE (and thus saying that the *Model 1917 was a re-chambered Lee-Enfield)
*Saying that the 1888 Commission Rifle was a Mauser (it is often confused for one, as it is also confused for a Mannlicher - in fact it is neither, and was designed by - you guessed it - a commission)
*Saying that the SMLE was dirt-sensitive when it is the least dirt-sensitive bolt-action rifle ever, and not mentioning dirt sensitivity for the Mauser, in which it is a far greater issue!
*Confusing extreme range and accurate range (it said that the Garand was accurate to 5000m)
*Frequently putting the wrong picture for the rifle being described in the voiceover
*Saying that the US went to war in 1917 with the Springfield M1903A3 (which was a simplified version from 1942)
*Talking about “future developments” over footage of a German soldier with a HK G3
*Saying that the Berthier initially had a 5-shot clip whilst showing footage of the original Berthier with the 3-shot clip
*Saying that the lower rate of fire of the Gew98 Mauser was due to the 5-shot magazine and nothing to do with the awful position of the bolt handle (once the mag’s empty on the Lee-Enfield in rapid fire you only put 5 rounds in it at a go unless you get a lull, cos that 2nd charger is a pain - trust me, I’ve done it, although only on the range, and I’ve had 25rds out in aimed fire in about 50 secs only loading 5 at a go)
*Saying that a good British soldier could do 12-15 rounds per minute (they had to do 15+ to guarantee their pay)
*Graphics of a 1st generation muzzle-loading rifle with a non-round projectile

As I say, painful watching. There were more mistakes than just that, but my mind has blanked them out. Moral of the story - don’t believe everything you see on the TV.

One of the experts on there (who spoke no crap) was the instructor on my civvy RCO’s course :smiley:

#2

Way back in 1984, I found a permanent cure for bloody awful TV programmes - I threw the infernal box out of the window & haven’t owned one since 8)

#3

Good idea, I like :smiley: :lol:

#4

usually the discovery channel is pretty good at making sure they stick to the facts…but that just sounds awful.

#5

I haven’t connected the TV to the antenna for 2 years now.
I get the news through the net and i rent the movies i want to watch.
Most people just don’t believe me.

#6

I remember when CNN was showing the aircraft of the US armed forces which were going to fight to Irak…

The FA-18 Hornet:

This is a F-117 Night Hawk.

THIS is a FA-18 Hornet

The B-2 Spirit:

This is a B-1B Lancer

THIS is a B-2 Spirit

#7

Eagle:
This is proof that believing the AKN can seriously damage ones concept of reality.
One day, the MSM will start to REPORT, rather than reinvent the truth… :roll:

#8

Is it just me or does the last pic of the B-2 Spirit look like the Gotha299/Horten IX? :?

#9

I recently bought a WWII documentary and the mispronounciation was horrendous :evil:. They said Soviet, Saviett: Nazi, Natsi and the list goes on from there. Maybe it would seem like a small thing on your part, but listining to it for 2 hours begins to work at ones nerves! :shock:

#10

I am quite suprised, the discovery and national geographic are pretty accurate with their information :shock: , are you sure you heard right and just didn’t words out of context?

#11

Yes, I’m sure. You can’t confuse things like most of those mistakes, especially when they’re backed up with images.

#12

Another mistake I just remembered when making another post - they stated that the No.4 had a free-floating barrel. A military-bedded No.4 does NOT have a free-floating barrel - there is a 6lb bearing force against the stock at the muzzle, if done correctly. The rest of the length should be clear of the stock though.

#13

Possibly they are talking of a free floating barrel but havent done it yet ??

#14

Possibly they are talking of a free floating barrel but havent done it yet ??[/quote]
Ummm… I assume they’re referring to the No. 4 Short Magazine Lee-Enfield. Which was replaced by the SLR (FN-FAL) in British service in the 1950s or so. Although IIRC India still use quite a few of them.

#15

No, they said that it had a free-floating barrel, which as standard it doesn’t. >Some civilians re-bedded theirs to free-float, others “centre-bedded” them to adjust the vibration harmonics. But the military standard one has a 6lb bearing force at the muzzle-end.

India never used the No.4 in any meaningful numbers - they stuck to the SMLE. Some were reconditioned in Pakistan, though (can’t remember the marking, but I know it when I see it). India also produced the Rifle 2A and 2A1, which are SMLEs in 7.62mm NATO (I had one for a bit) which are still occasionally seen in guard or reserve use.