Talk:Band of Brothers (miniseries)/Archive 1

Archive 1

The Pacific

The information about The Pacific is purely HBO marketing, and does not belong in the introduction to BoB. It should be removed, or placed further down.

Deneaux (talk) 07:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixing the Henry V quote

Quotations from Henry 5th have been moved to Wikiquote - I don't know how to fix this link - any helpers?2toise 15:44, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Verifying the accuracy of Easy Company's attachment to the 3rd Battalion 506 PIR

The references in the article are likely incorrect. Alone the implied attachment of Easy Company to 3rd Battalion 506 PIR is quite obviously wrong and makes one question the accuracy of the paragraph. The HBO miniseries was based on Stephen E. Ambrose's book, which was meticulously researched.

Anyone else noticed this? I'd like to see the paragraph rewritten. 67.180.197.16 08:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

To what paragraph do you refer? Not this article? Beanbatch 03:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

This was most likely the same paragraph you have recently edited in the Kehlsteinhaus article. Jbetak

easy company was in 2nd battalion (able baker, C___=1) Dog, Easy Fox= 2nd

Just one comment--Ambrose's book is replete with errors, most small but some major, and is NOT a relable source for accuracy. It is an oral history (not "meticulously researched") and relies far too heavily on the sometimes mistaken memories of its participants.--Buckboard 22:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Something missing

Where's Cpt Winters?

Easy Company is attached to the 2nd Battalion, not the 3rd. Or was, rather. And Captain Winters is on the list as Major Winters, his final military ranking. 65.95.232.95 22:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

All of the above discussion of "attachment" is semantics. In military jargon "attachment" means belonging to one unit but being temporarily assigned to another. Easy Company was an integral part of the 2nd Battalion of the 506th, not "attached". During WWII the Army did not include the term "battalion" when identifying units within a regiment--it was implied. When Winters moved up to command of the 506th's 2nd Battalion, Easy Company was one of the companies he commanded. Buckboard 10:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Historical Errors

I've updated the entry about the mention of Hitler's death on April 11, 1945 at Thalem. It's clear that the date is simply wrong on this scene. Ambrose states that the Landsberg work camp wasn't freed until April 29, 1945. The official documents (After Action Reports) for the regiment don't show them leaving Landsberg until April 30, 1945. The scene in Thalem is framed after the events in Landsberg, and mentions the newly-received orders to advance and take Berchtesgaden, which didn't happen until May 3, 1945 (according to both sources). Actually, I can't find _any_ mention of Thalem at all in either source during April or early May. In addition, this overview of Kaufering camps lists the male camp at Landsberg as being liberated on April 27, 1945. Romalar 05:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I would question the validity of the error that mentions the sunlight during the takeoff sequence in episode 1. I'd need to check the scene in question and the supposed time but it gets dark very slowly and very late in England in the month of June. Certainly, the sky can appear quite bright to the north-west until after midnight if the weather is good.--Chris Wood 13:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, on June 6, the weather was not good because Eisenhower faced the decision to OK the invasion or postpone it for a while. On June 5, it was stormy in the channel, therefore June 6 weather was not any better.

That's speculation without any proof whatsoever. Additionally, the paratroopers took off and were dropped on June 5th, not June 6th. --Scottie theNerd 05:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Another point to note. Britain remained on Double Summer Time BST+2 during the war making sunset an our later than today's summers. It could have appeared light in half the sky until the early hours of the morning. Chris Wood 17:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the previous change to dividing the errors: What was wrong with just "Historical errors"? All the errors listed are historical rather than film mistakes. --Scottie theNerd 07:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The latest edits regarding 11 April 1945 and reintroducing the section on the "possibility" of Lewis Nixon hearing rumors about Hitler's death just isn't plausible. Please reread what I wrote above and the links to the online references. The events as portrayed in the miniseries are contradicted by multiple external historical accounts and facts, and couldn't have happened on 11 April. There is no reason to speculate about rumors of Hitler's death. It seems clear to me that they simply got the date and location of a minor scene wrong.

Otherwise, I agree that the section is better as just "Historical errors". Romalar 20:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Joe Liebgott won a Brone Star for his actions at Brecourt, yet no mention of this is made during the film nor is he portrayed participating in this battle —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.36.125.209 (talk • contribs).

according to the edit summary by 220.239.86.235, Liebgott was shown in the Brecourt Manor assault. I haven't watched that scene to verify. --Habap 22:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You've all done a wonderful job of keeping the trivia out of this section and limiting it to material errors (i.e. significant deviations from historical fact) but I'm wondering if the Market Garden reserve chute entry might be a bit trivial. Sure it was a high jump, but is that really material and do we really know that the statement was never made? I'm tempted to delete or put a {{Fact}} tag on it.--Lepeu1999 17:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to emphasize that the episode-by-episode-critique on "trigger time" does not read like a review by a historian but like the complaining of a man who's annoyed because he never gained as much publicity as Ambrose. See sentences like "Another point I could have advised them on, but does anyone CARE?" Although he's criticizing a lot of major mistakes, which has to be commended, he's also picking on a whole lot of minor ones leading to critique based on interviews with only one person (a way to conduct research he would critisize in Ambrose's work) or even his opinion. I'm not a regular Wiki-User, therefore I'd like to ask if there is a way to make this source appear less strong than it does now.

---

HIstorical accuracy

You have to admit that it was a tv series and that not every detail could have been put in. about the German tank running over the guy dont be critical of that it could have happened and i would bet it did happen somewhere. i thought they were great movies and were wonderfully accurate.

As to accuracy, 101st historian Mark Bando put it best--they were accurate in reviving the spirit of the division, what it (the entire 101st, including Easy) endured, and what it accomplished. Easy in that respect "accurately" stood in for the 101st. But many of the "details" either did not occur or occured to some other unit. And Ambrose himself disparaged or allowed to be disparaged many fine units and individuals within the division to elevate Easy's heroism.--Buckboard 22:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

running time

The running time for the film in this article is incorrect. It is listed as 600 minutes, but is actually closer to 900 minutes, as each of the ten episodes was considerably longer than one hour.

It's actually 550 minutes without commercials. you must have watched it on history channel. --Bp0 03:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Bp0 is right...but the 900min. could have been from the bonus CD from the Box Set... --Yoshman

on the back of the dvd cover it says the running time is 700 minutes but that could be including special features.

105s

"During the Brecourt Manor Assault on D-day in episode two, Colonel Strayer of 2nd Battalion, 506th tells Richard Winters to eliminate a battery of 88mm cannon. The movie portrays the cannon as 88mm guns. In reality and in the book, the battery were 105mm guns, not 88mm."

I removed this because it is inaccurate. Rewatch the episode, and pay particular attention to the report Richard Winters gives to his commanding officer (Strayer?) after the assault on Brecourt Manor. "They were 105s, sir, not 88s. We disabled them and then pulled out." Romalar 07:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. I had assumed that Strayer/Sink/whomever thought they were 88s because the 88s were the most famous German weapon and tolk Winters they were such, despite reality (fog of war). --Habap 13:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Irregardless of Winter's correction, are the guns still not incorrect in that they were 88's, assuming what was said is true? Granted it's not a historical mistake but rather a filmmakers mistake —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.36.125.209 (talk • contribs).

Actually, it is accurate. The officer tells Winters that they are 88s. Winters and his men take them out. Winters corrects his commander, as he did in real life. So, it was neither a historical or fillmaker's mistake, but rather a mis-identification that actually happened. Seeing as this was the first time the 101st had seen action AND they'd heard of 88s from those who'd already been in combat, the senior officer assumed they were 88s. By the time of their drop into Holland, all the veterans would recognize an 88 just by the sound. Also, note that the filmmaker did not use guns that looked like 88s at this point (unlike in Foy, when IIRC, it looks like an 88 in the middle of town). --Habap 22:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The German 88 was infamous among Allied soldiers, and it wasn't uncommon for American soldiers to refer to all forms of German artillery as 88's, however innacurate this might be.

That's because they thought that all German artillery were Flak 88's, which is incorrect, just as they had a phobia for Tiger tanks. The scene in question here is an accurate portrayal of inaccuracy in intelligence. --Scottie theNerd 09:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Brecourt

To clarify any misunderstanding, Joe Liebgott was manning a machine gun on Brecourt and was setting up a base of fire near the Company's approach to the field, hence receiving very little screen time. Winters's orders are conveyed before the scene and also stated in the book. --Scottie theNerd 23:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

He is however neglected from recognition at the end of the episode when the list of the that got medals was displayed

Added category Band of Brothers characters

I added Category:Band of Brothers characters to index all characters from the series. Note that not all the characters have pages yet, so if you add a new page for someone on the show please add that category to their article. Dugwiki 17:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems odd to add a category for Band of Brothers "characters" when they are, in fact, real people. Visit the page for Easy Company for a better list of the real people. Note, the actors are playing real people, not characters. --Habap 17:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, technically, the people depicted on the TV show' Band of Brothers are characters who are based on actual soldiers. Even though they're based on real soldiers, the people you see on the TV show are still characters played by actors and the show is scripted. So while based on reality, what you see for the most part on the show are not actual people but characters based on those people. Hence the category. (As an analogy, when Anthony Hopkins played Richard Nixon, "Richard Nixon" would appear listed as a character in that movie, as opposed to the real person "Richard Nixon" who wasn't in the movie.) Dugwiki 15:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Jim Leibgott's page on Ancestry.com, Joseph Liebgott was born in Michigan. He appears with his parents and siblings in the 1920 census there, at the age of 14.

Christopher Award

While I did find this award[1], I don't think we should list it, as the awards themselves are not yet notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. --Habap 17:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

McCabe and Medal of Honor

Interestingly, Peter McCabe's great-grandfather was awarded the Medal of Honor for action at Vera Cruz. [2] --Habap 22:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Lt Dike killed?

At the end of Episode 7, Lt Dike is shown a being killed in the attack on Foy. This is not true. After being replaced by Lt Spears, Dike was reassigned to General Taylor's staff. I really cannot recall this to be shown in that episode. Dike is relieved by Spiers during the attack, and he is not mentioned/shown anymore?? Gnorn 22:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This comes around 1:01:38 when Lipton is talking about the soldiers who were killed by the sniper. A dead soldier is shown. As he continues to walk, Picante asks if it's "true about Dike", Lipton says yes, and Picante says "Thank god for small mercies." The dialogue suggests that Dike is killed, although it doesn't specifically say this. The "small mercy" might be that he was relieved of command. The dead soldier is either Dike, or Ken Webb from earlier in the episode, but I can't tell. If it is Dike, then obviously he is supposed to be dead; if not then it's uncertain and we might as well assume the historically accurate and remove the "historical error" from this article. --Bp0 02:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suspect that Perconte is asking about whether Dike was relieved of command, since it wouldn't have been known to the entire company immediately. I may try to sneak in watching it on my laptop over lunch tomorrow, but I never had the impression that Dike was killed. A veteran might suggest that "killing was too good for him".... --Habap 03:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the movie ever said that Dike was killed in Foy. (what an idiot he was eh?)

The soldier killed in the scene is Ken Webb. It is shown in the film as well as the book. According to the book, Dike was relieved of his command. Easy Company later saw him on General Taylor's personal staff as a Captain during a parade. --Scottie theNerd 05:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

For those following the miniseries version, Ken Webb was killed behind a beehive if I recall correctly. Dike was planted b ehind a haystack. --Scottie theNerd 05:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was Webb, and Dike is never shown killed in the miniseries, nor was he killed in real life. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input everyone! Gnorn 22:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Lt Dike was not killed. Frank Perconte is still alive and living in Joilet, Illinois. I have had many conversations with him, been to his home sat a watched WHY WE FIGHT and had a reall nice time with him. I had him at my son's High School for a History Class on World War 2.

I talked to Frank himself and Lt. Dike was not killed. His statement referred to the fact the Kike was transfered.

If you wish to contact Frank Perconte -- go to the White Pages type in FRANK PERCONTE Joliet Illinois. Believe me -- he will welcome your call. His birthday is next week and he will be 90 years old.

What do you think about my changes to the infobox?

I've added a lot of information from IMDB. Tiger Trek 13:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks terrible. Revert ASAP. All the details are already in the article. Just list out the names, not which part of the project they worked on. The infobox stretches the length of the article. --Scottie theNerd 14:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Not all the details are already in the article. The article doesnt talk about the writers, the composer, cinematographers or the editors. Tiger Trek 16:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The rest of my points still stand. It would look far better if only the names were listed. --Scottie theNerd 06:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Historical Inaccuracies

In Major Dick Winters Memoirs “Beyond Band of Brothers” pgs 222-223 he states that it was definitely Easy Company that captured Berchtesgaden and not the 3rd Infantry or the French 2nd Armored, or even the 7th Infantry regiment.DRMAKA

Sadly, he is wrong. When they arrived there were no Allied troops there because they had been pulled out prior to Easy's arrival. So, in the perception of Easy and the rest of the 506th, they were first, but, they weren't. --Habap 11:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sadly for you, he is right. Major Winters was a serious officer, not a spineless civilian who has no qualms about lying. Feel free to live in your fantasy world, but I doubt you are going to accuse him of lying like you may. Of course, many accounts would agree with you, but, ironically, most of the other forces apparently never even ENTERED the buildings, thus, they were the first to occupy the Berchtesgarden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.250.36 (talk • contribs)

Your comment made me laugh. Are you saying that entering the buildings is the determining factor in whether you occupy a location? That sounds ridiculous. Second, do you really think that actual soldiers would not enter the buildings? I mean, would you feel safe if no one ever checked for possible hidden snipers? Remember, we're talking about combat veterans. Now, do you have any evidence that those units never entered the buildings? Winters was a wonderful officer and is a great and noble man, but other units were there first. (Oh, and Berchtesgaden is a town in the German Bavarian Alps., not a building.) --Habap 14:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No one is accusing Maj. Winters of lying. It is possible, however, that he is wrong about his facts. Winters is not the definitive source of historical facts. You don't have to have entered the town yourself in order to know who was there first, and if other accounts reveal that E Company, 506th was not the first into Berchtesgaden, then chances are they probably weren't. --Scottie theNerd 17:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, in Winters' memoirs he allows that 3ID or 2AD(FF) could have made it into Bertchesgaden before the 506th, but doesn't believe it, since the town was completely undisturbed: no looting, no sign of forced entry, no indication from the locals that they had seen Americans there before.--Solicitr (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone ever met a member of Eagle Company? I have. I had dinner and lunch with Frank Perconte. Even sat his house and had a few beers and watched WHY WE FIGHT. At 89 years old he's a spicy old devil. I asked come to my son's school and we shown a few clips of the BAND OF BROTHERS and he answered some questions. If you want to know more about him and to contact give me a hollar. He talked to you on the phone.

Capsource1@comast.net

http://nwitimes.com/articles/2005/04/23/news/lake_county/2f848416e95062aa86256fec000034d8.txt

Capsource1

Your story would be more believable if you got the name of the Company right... --Scottie theNerd 04:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding a uniform (mis)sighting

A thing I have noticed is the Uniform of the British in Episode 5. Especially in the joint briefing scene it is clear to see that some (if not all) of the British are wearing the screaming eagle patch, which was clearly an American mark that the British would not have been wearing. Is there a reason for this? I know there are many instances in the show where it is so accurate it seems innacurate (such as the grenade exploding on impact), and if not is it mroe extensive than I have noticed so far? If it is indeed an error it surely deserves a mention! any thoughts?--Noofworm 03:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't the place to list out trivial historical accuracies. We're looking for anything that is significant in the context of the real Easy Company and events of the Second World War. --Scottie_theNerd 06:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If it were a mistake to do with the Americans uniforms it would get a mention without a doubt. But since it is the British no one seems to mind. Perhaps you have a point, as it does indeed sound more trivial than the other historical innacuracies listed, but that does not detract from my feeling that, as a British person, it still deserves a mention somewhere. Especially because of its glaring comparison to the otherwise flawless uniforms elsewhere.--Noofworm 17:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So you're countering alleged bias with your own bias? Trivia is trivia; other less-notable inaccuracies have been removed. No one's complaining about the omission of an over-loaded M1 Garand inaccuracy, and that's as American as you can get. Would American inaccuracies be more easily picked up? Probably; the series is based on an American combat unit after all. But, a single event over a uniform patch is hardly worth mentioning, and you haven't established the actual inaccuracy yourself yet. --Scottie_theNerd 17:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have established the innacuracy, I said it in my first paragraph. I can't find any other evidence to say it wasn't an innacuracy anywhere. There has to be somewhere for this trivia stuff to go. Not only is it interesting but it adds more substance to the article. Perhaps a new section? --Noofworm 01:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You said yourself that you weren't certain over the inaccuracy, and as of current you haven't provided any references to prove it. In case, the fact that this is a minor, trivial detail means it does not add any substance to the article. As editors, we are trying to present information in a fluid, comprehensive manner rather than listing out details as we think of them. Don't make the mistake of trying to put too much trivial information into an article. Just because it's interesting doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia. --Scottie_theNerd 01:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to get too involved with this, but it isn't an inaccuracy. The officer in questions was the BRITISH LIASON OFFICER with the 101st and, as such, would be entitled to wear the patch as he was attached to the 101st. He is positivly identified in that role in the scene in question.--Lepeu1999 17:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Now THATS what i'm talkin about! Thanks man :) now all is clear --Noofworm 23:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

-I say that it's a mild coincidence that I read this discussion today, and Episodes 1-5 were on The History Channel. So, I kept a keen eye for the "uniform incident" in question within Episode 5. Lepeu's explanation that the British Airborne colonel (lieutenant colonel, actually) is a/the liaison officer is probably correct. Even if it's not, I have an equally plausible explanation:

—If you look closely, the Brit colonel is not wearing the trademark splotched-"camo" Denison smock of the British Airborne. Instead, he is wearing the exact same US Airborne (and Army) -issue service jacket of monochrome OD/khaki (albeit a bit dark... but notice, several other officers in the room have the same jacket). What may have happened is that a US officer loaned the jacket to the Brit since, as the Brit colonel even stated, "I just swam it [the river] last night". Being that the scene is early morning, it's highly likely that, if this officer isn't a liaison, he made his way across the river, out of the danger zone, mere hours earlier, and was in need of a change of clothes. You have to admit, it's highly unlikely that the Americans would have British uniforms on hand to supply an officer with. -- HawkeAnyone 04:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The Colonel's pistol

I'm a bit skeptical on one detail: is it confirmed that the colonel portrayed in the miniseries the same one referred to by Winters in his interview? As a commander of an occupying force, I would imagine Winters would face more than one colonel. --Scottie theNerd 02:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The colonel in the mini-series is based on the one from Winters referes to but with a difference - the real officer was no where near as arrogant (see Ambrose's account based on his interview with WInters in the BOB book) and the pistol had never been fired. Winters makes the point that the officer was please to turn it over to WInters as one combat soldier to another and made the point that it had never been fired - and that he was pleased with that. Winters was too and stated he still had the pistol but had never fired it either.--Lepeu1999 17:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Huge spacing gap

Whats with the huge spacing gap after it says Episodes list. Alot of blank space to scroll down to the actual episodes. I go to edit the spaces and don't see them. Is it due to the size of the sidebar boxes and the episode boxes?--63.163.213.245 02:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

How should we mention?

That this mini-series received 9.6/10 at IMDB, the highest I've seen so far on the site? --84.249.253.201 13:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If you think it warrants a 'reception' section or something of that nature, you can put it in. David Fuchs 16:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

US Army Branch Insignia confusion

The airborne boys have an odd branch insignia but I can't figure out what it is. It has the crossed rifles of the infantry, but then a flag or something over the rifles. Does anyone know what this insignia is? --MKnight9989 12:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

In WWII it was the crossed rifled muskets - same as the rest of the infantry. In addition, they were authorized to wearthe airborne badge (opened parachute) on their overseas cap as well as jump wings on their blouse.--Lepeu1999 12:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I know that, but Maj. Winter's badge has something over the rifles. I'm curious as to what it is. --MKnight9989 13:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not sure of the particular scene you're thinking of, it wasn't uncommon for officers to have thier unit number over the crossed rifles - such as 502 or 506. This was an optional variant that was, indeed used by the 101st. Might that be what you're thinking of?--Lepeu1999 12:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That probably is what I saw. thanks mate. --MKnight9989 12:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

How to pronouce "Bastogne

In the series i hear it as "Bass-stone" yet i hear some locals and documentrys refear to it as "Bass-stone-ya"

Could someone give me some clarfication(ForeverDEAD 00:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC))

The first pronunciation would probably be that of an American pronouncing a foreign name wrong. The second is the correct French/Belgian pronunciation. Morhange 04:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's basically subjective. It's completely up to you how you pronounce it. Either version would be fine. Scarian^Talk 07:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks--ForeverDEAD 20:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed removal of Historical Inaccuracies

Why not just make a separate page for them?

02:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)02:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)02:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)~

Over the past year or so, we've seen the Historical Inaccuracies section in the Band of Brothers article grow and shrink thanks to the efforts of editors. Most of the inaccuracies identified have been backed up with credible sources, thus conforming with WP:V. However, what I am about to suggest will probably meet a lot of resistance due to the effort put into obtaining all of this information.

The Historical Inaccuracies has in practice become the centre-point of the article. The article says less about the miniseries than it does about its historical inaccuracies. The episode summaries are minimal, information on development and critical reception is lacking, and the only padded information in the article are the cast and inaccuracies. The cast is more or less static, but as time goes by, more editors will pick out more inaccuracies and add them to the list, often with credible sources, sometimes without.

I draw to your attention that this article is about the miniseries Band of Brothers. This is not Historical inaccuracies in Band of Brothers. We could go on and on about every single detail that the series got wrong, and we can do that for any film or TV series set in historical contexts. I am not suggesting that the information is incorrect. I am proposing that the historical inaccuracies be trimmed down or removed.

The main issue is relevance. Many of the sources verifiable. Very few, if any, draw any relation to Band of Brothers, which is precisely what the article is about. I therefore suggest the following:

• For conflicting information regarding BoB characters and real-life individuals, they should be combined into one paragraph with appropriate referencing to highlight the series' artistic license (or plain incorrectness).
• General historical errors (e.g. dates, equipment, uniforms, tactics) should be removed and additions should be discouraged.
• Sources that directly refer to Band of Brothers in its historical context should be cited more frequently.

WP:WEIGHT should be considered seriously: we have many editors contributing many inaccuracies, but the result is that the article is devoid of meaningful, encyclopedic information. I would be interested in hearing opinions on this. --Scottie_theNerd 09:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding idea! I firmly agree that the biographical differences should be incorporated into the cast section & the rest removed. It detracts from the article. We ran into a very similar issue with the article on Saving Private Ryan. --Lepeu1999 18:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Band of brothers01.jpg

Image:Band of brothers01.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Main characters

As you all know, every Band of Brothers episode (with the exception of episode 10, 'Points') has a main character. I have added them to the 'Episodes' table. I have certain doubts about my choice in episode 9, 'Why we fight', since Liebgott is the main character, but isn't really followed for a long time. I also have doubts about episode 1, 'Currahee', since the nCO's commit 'mutery' without Sobel knowing about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endin1 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why we would need to identify one main character in each episode. While I agree with what is on the chart as of this message, the purpose eludes me. --Scottie_theNerd 05:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [3]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot Summary

why are the plot summaries for each episode so short? It seems that each one warrants a paragraph not a single sentence remeber this is not a just a movie it is well over 10 hours long Meswallen (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Airborne song?

Does anybody know the name of the song that the airborne units were singing while traveling in the convoy? I've heard 2 versions of it, but can't find either.

The only lyrics I can remember are: "Glory, glory, what a hell of a way to die!(x3) And he ain't gonna jump no more!" 204.14.12.35 (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It was Blood on the Risers - Oldfarm (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

German teenager

Isn't one of the historical inaccuracies about Capt. Winters shooting that kid? I thought it was an armed adult who tried to kill him, but i could be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.236.174 (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If I had access to the book, I could verify. Unfortunately, I don't have it with me. I don't remember anything about it in the book, but it has been a long time since I last read it. --clpo13_(talk) 23:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

FROM: Ambrose, Stephen E., (2001). - Band of Brothers. - p.147-148. - ISBN 074322454X:

"In the lead, Winters got to the road first. He leaped up on it. Right in front of him, only a few feet away, was a German sentry with his head down, ducking the incoming fire from Reese's machine-guns [Lt. Frank Reese's squad providing covering fire for the advance]. To his right, Winters could see out of the corner of his eye a solid mass of men, more than 100, packed together, lying down at the juncture of the dike and the road. They too had their heads down to duck under the machine-gun fire. They were all wearing their long winter overcoats and had their backpacks on. Every single one of them was facing the dike, he was behind them. They were only 15 meters away.

Winters wheeled and dropped back to the west side of the road, pulled the pin of a hand grenade, and lobbed it over toward the lone sentry. Simultaneously the sentry lobbed a potato masher back at him. The instant Winters threw his grenade he realized he had made a big mistake; he had forgotten to take off the band of tape around the handle of the grenade he kept there to avoid an accident.

Before the potato masher could go off, Winters jumped back up on the road. The sentry was hunched down, covering his head with his arms, waiting for Winters grenade to go off. He was only 3 yards away. Winters shot him with his M-1 from the hip.

The shot startled the entire company. The SS troops started to rise and turn toward Winters, en masse. Winters pivoted to his right and fired into the solid mass."

FROM: Winters, Major Dick, (2006). - Beyond Band of Brothers. - p.140-141. ISBN 9780425208137:

"My adrenaline was pumping, too. I had never been so pumped up in my life. On the smoke signal, the base of fire commenced and all three columns started their dash across the 175 to 200 yards of level field. I was a good athlete in school, but I am sure that I ran that 200 yards faster than I had ever run 200 yards in my life. Hidden in the grass were strings of barbed wire, about the height of the tops of our shoes. I tripped once or twice but continued running. Oddly enough, I seemed to be floating more than running as I rapidly outpaced everyone else in the platoon. When I reached the road leading to the dike, I was completely alone, oblivious to where the rest of the men were located.

The roadway tapered from being twenty feet high at the dike to a level of about three feet in front of me. I simply took a running jump onto the roadway. Good God! Right in front of me was a sentry on outpost, who still had his head down, ducking the covering fire from Lieutenant Reis. To my right was a solid mass of infantry, all packed together, lying down at the juncture of the dike and the road, on which I was standing and which led to the river. They, too, still had their heads down to duck under that base of fire. Since it was already cold in October [5 OCT 1944], the enemy were all wearing their long winter overcoats and had their backpacks on, all of which hindered their movement. Every single man was facing the dike and I was in their rear. I realized what the size of a company formation of paratroopers looked like and I knew this was much larger than one of our companies. Other than a lone sentry, who was directly in front of me, the rear of this mass of men was about fifteen yards away and the front of the company was no more than an additional fifty yards from my position.

I wheeled and dropped back to my side of the road, pulled the pin of a hand grenade, and tossed it over. At the same time, the German sentry lobbed a potato masher back at me. As soon as I threw the grenade, I realized that I had goofed. I had kept a band of tape around the handle of my grenades to avoid an accident in case the pin was pulled accidentally. Fortunately, the enemy’s grenade also failed to explode. I immediately jumped back up on top of the road. The sentry was still hunched down covering his head with his arms waiting for my grenade to explode. He was only three of four yards away. After all these years, I can still see him smiling at me as I stood on top of the dike [road]. It wasn’t necessary to take an aimed shot. I simply shot from the hip. That shot startled the entire company and they started to rise and turn toward me en masse. After killing the sentry, I simply pivoted to my right and kept firing right into that solid mass of troops."

FROM: Anderson, Christopher J. - "Dick Winters: Reflections on the Band of Brothers, D-Day and Leadership". - American History. - August 2004:

"I remember when I was interviewed for the movie, I told one of the writers that as I shot the German, he looked up at me and smiled. Well, I kept going with my story, but later, as it turns out, the writer wanted to play up the thing about the smile. He wanted to play that up as a flashback, the type of bad flashbacks you can have. I have flashbacks every day. But the writer wanted to play up that point. And that is why in the series that German is portrayed as a kid and why later on when I am in Paris they portray me looking at this kid on the train and having another flashback. It’s stupid, but I didn’t get the chance to review the scenes."

Nowhere in the Ambrose Band of Brothers or Winters Beyond Band of Brothers does it say how old the sentry was. I suspect this was theatrical license to get to the viewer.

207.69.139.137 (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Cast and characters

The list needs to be cut down to just the characters that appear in the credits, as I've noted in my edit summaries. Unfortunately, I do not have my BoB set on my right now, so I can't run down the credits. I'm pretty sure half of the list, can be deleted. Thing is, we shouldn't be adding new characters to it just because the list is still in the state it is now. Kusonaga (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Why just characters in the opening credits? Several characters were featured in multiple episodes but not given billing in the opening. Morhange (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Because the characters outside of the credits generally don't have more than a line or two. In the context of the television series, they don't play a significant part. They're guest stars and television articles generally name only the main characters, except when guest stars play a significant role or are significant by the virtue of the actor playing them. Kusonaga (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that the cast is so large, and they cannot put EVERYONE in the opening credits. Matthew Leitch, Peter McCabe and Robin Laing, for example, were secondary characters but they had lines almost every episode, and usually they had many lines. I don't think we need to list extras who had no lines at all, but if characters play significant parts in an episode, they should be mentioned. Morhange (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Opening credits are an easy tool to decide who is notable to be on the list and who is not. Single episode characters (with the possible exception of Blithe) are not significant players in the big picture of the series. Renee, for example, is not mentioned ever again and appears for what is really not a lot when compared to the total running time. Kusonaga (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the current cast list will suffice. I don't think the nurse needs to be added —— RyanLupin • (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) So this is what the list looks like based purely on opening credits. I think it gives us a much more accurate view of the characters involved in the series and their importance. Kusonaga (talk) 10:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The novel

This page requires a lot more info about the novel, since that is the basis of the series. In fact, that should form the beginning of the article, after which can be delved into the television series. Kusonaga (talk) 09:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Timeline dates in the Episodes table

What do people think about adding another column to the Episodes table, showing the dates on which the episodes take place? As this is a historical series, showing real events it would be useful to show when these events take place in order to get a better over view of the series. I don't know a huge amount about the events and it was only after watching the first episode again a couple of days ago that I realised it covered such a large timeframe. Example of the table with the added dates:

#	Episode title	Director	Writer	Main character	Original airdate	Dates shown
1	"Currahee"	Phil Alden Robinson	Erik Jendresen, Tom Hanks	Herbert Sobel	September 9, 2001 (2001-09-09)	July 1942 (1942-07) - June 6, 1944 (1944-06-06)
Easy Company is introduced to Captain Sobel, who has the group undergo hard and unfair training. As a result, Sobel comes into conflict with his men, including Richard Winters, his executive officer. After displaying a lack of leadership ability in the field, Sobel is reassigned. The company is shipped to England to prepare for D-Day.

Idealy it would be better for the Dates shown column to be to the left of the Original airdate column, but this is a limitation of the template. JP Godfrey (Talk to me) 12:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Historical Errors

We need to reach some sort of consensus here. The Historical Inaccuracies section is become bloated as time passes, simply because there can be any number of errors - both significant and minor. There are things points to keep in mind:

1. Band of Brothers is based off the book of the same name, not off the Second World War in general.
2. Band of Brothers is a television miniseries. It is not a documentary. Therefore, it is allowed a reasonable amount of creative licence and flexibility as far as events and characters go.

The reason I bring this up is because editors are adding more and more errors. Yes, they are often correct and sometimes even sourced. However, it has reached the point where the article contains little else but a list of errors, and that is stated to detract from the value of the article and borders on violating WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, and most of the errors listed are meaningless to readers unless they have seen the miniseries. Additionally, some reported mistakes do not regard the fact that the miniseries is based off the book, which is not a 100% accurate retelling of the events of the war, nor is it a universal record of what every other unit did.

The solution I present is:

• The Historical Inaccuracies section should be heavily trimmed. Only errors that are notable should be included. The most relevant of these is what happens to certain characters at the end of the war, such as the incorrect death of Albert Blithe and Joseph Liebgott's profession.
• Errors involving minor details, such as tactical directions, equipment, script and actions, should not be included. These are far too trivial and are easily allowable within the creative framework of the miniseries. There are other sites on the internet that act as databases for movie mistakes; Wikipedia shouldn't be used in this way.

If this is followed strictly, the current list will only contain two items, possible three: Albert Blithe's death, Joseph Liebgott's post-war career and the controversy over who was first to Berchtesgaden, the latter being a significant event and climax in history and in the book/miniseries. A fourth point could include the Colonel's Walther PP, as it is referred to significantly in the miniseries, the making-of episode and in Major Winters's memoirs.

The other details, including who was wounded when, minor details in the script and other items that fall under WP:TRIVIA should be removed, and additions to the article should adhere to the above in order to prevent it become bloated again. --Scottie_theNerd 04:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What about eliminating the section alltoghether? Pick a few glaring examples, work them into a new section entilted 'Production' with a discussion on the source material, some information on where the series was filmed, how it was cast, etc. As long as you have a section titled 'historical inaccuracies' you're going to get a list of trivia from people trying to prove how much smarter they are then the filmmakers.--Lepeu1999 18:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a big supporter of the Historical Inaccuracies section. This isn't Saving Private Ryan, it's a direct representation of real battles and real soldiers. While every possible minor gaffe need not be included, it's incumbent on an encyclopedia to identify cases where major literary license or historical inaccuracies are found. Additionally, where individual people are misrepresented (for whatever reason), a viewer will often take the miniseries as historical fact; helping educate people is part of the mission of Wikipedia. Many readers will find this entry as an entre into learning about Easy Company; calling out major departures from truth is both notable and the right thing to do.

However, once concern I have is the poor sourcing of some of the historical inaccuracies. Joe Liebgott, for example, is listed as having actually become a barber, but the sourcing is a forum post on Bill Guanere's website (certainly not a WP:RS by wikipedia standards). The same site claims that Liebgotts children and grandchildren say that he was never Jewish-- certainly notable if true (apparently it is also a revelation to the surviving members of Easy Company) but again we have no reliable source either way.

Basically, the section should stay, but needs a cleanup. Wellspring (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This is why people don't trust Wikipedia. Rather than being an unbiased source of facts, this article clearly has someone biased against Band of Brothers as HALF of the article is dedicated to its "inaccuracies". Then once you get to read them, its ridiculous things like someone didn't get a nickname until later or a promotion happened later or someone was given an award 4 days later. In what way, shape or form are any of these things "major departures from the truth"? The ONLY major thing noted in there is that Blythe didn't die, as it stands that really the only major error in all of Band of Brothers, and its not really their fault as Easy Co veterans reported that he died in 1948. Everything else listed is a result of having to condense the events into being done by a much smaller list of characters. As it stands the miniseries set a record for over 500 speaking roles, and is criticized for viewers not being able to tell characters apart, so it seems like if they had attempted to ADD more characters for the sake of historical accuracy it would have made the show more difficult to follow.JediColt (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's symptomatic of a larger problem, here at Wikipedia, being that anything that has ANYTHING to do with America in WW2, ETO specifically, is poo-pooed heavily. Just take a look at the article on Overlord. You would think the entire landing was a wholly UK endeavour and that the American contribution was nothing but a sideshow. WP WW2 articles are wholly biased towards a UK viewpoint (and not an historical one either, but a relatively modern revisionist historian's wet dream). I think the central issue is that many contributers, in an effort not to make America seem like they contributed more than what history and reality shows, have become a little (a lot) overzealous, and are, whether some cases are intentional and others subconsciously, commiting the opposite error by making it seem America was less important than what we really were. Jersey John (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed, the section is way overdone. Listing how far marches were, the "historical inaccuracy" of when a guy got a nickname or whether it was a major or a colonel is really nothing more than trivia. While this series was based on a book, it is still a work of fiction. It intended to be realistic, but realism and accuracy aren't interchangeable words. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

What's the fuzz? The section hasn't been a part of the article for a while now. Kusonaga (talk) 04:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• So we can't talk about it anymore? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course you can, it just seems a little redundant to me, since the section was removed. Kusonaga (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• It easy enough to not take part in any discussion. And that section is lovingly preserved below, just waiting for someone to "be bold" and re-insert it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Simon Pegg

What episode is he in? Speedboy Salesman (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

He is in episodes 1 and 2 (Currahee and Day of days). He is the guy who gives Winters the letter from Sobel which says he has to go to the court marshall. In episode 2, he is the guy that Lt. Meehan goes to in the plane, because Evans (Simon Pegg) is scared. Endin1 (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2008 (GMT+1)

So in Day of Days he (William Evans played by Simon Pegg) dies right?--Mart572:) (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Bill Evans was on Plane #66 with Meehan and the entire stick (and the flight crew) died in their crash. --Habap (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

George Rice

Is not only in the series and book, just is possibly the same George Rice in Tony Hillerman's autobiography. 143.232.210.38 (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Question

Who Plays THe Guy Called John Jenovec(Spelling)? In mainly the last episode of Band Of Brothers...He dies after the war in a car crash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.54.26 (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Historical Inaccuracies Section

I've moved it here, as it's largely unsourced. Additionally, this movie isn't a documentary, many of these "errors" amount to dramatic licensing on behalf of the directors. Also, other movies don't have massive sections dedicated to inaccuracies. 99.169.250.133 (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of sources in this section and those who don't are either common knowledge like Hitlers suicide or the number of round from a gun or they are from the commentary. This section contributes a lot to the article as the real soldiers from Easy company where previewed every episode to make sure as much as possible was true. And there are some characters who where mixed up and/or merged for ease of following the characters trough the show. But some things are just plane wrong and should be said. Beside that this is a TV-Show, not a movie. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 12:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Show me other shows/movies/miniseries on this project with sections, longer than any other in the article, which go into such ridiculous detail as "so and so wasn't called __________ until they got to Europe." The section would be relevant if this was a documentary, it's not. TV show, movie, it doesn't matter. The section has come under scrutiny before, and no consensus to keep it was established, I'm just the only one who took the time to remove it. The section goes against common practice on here, it makes the article longer than what is reasonable, and adds very little to the article itself, not to mention that most of it is non-notable dreck and unsourced. The very lead of the article outlines that some dramatic license was taken, that characters were merged, etc. 99.169.250.133 (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, as was pointed out in the above discussion, many of the sources don't meet even the loosest standards for a reliable source, one in particular being a forum posting about somebody's post war job....as if that's an important part of the movie. 99.169.250.133 (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm in full support. That section was all original research and trivia. Kusonaga (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I do think the bit about Albert Blithe should be readded somewhere. That is quite a glaring inaccuracy in the miniseries that I think deserves a mention in the article Morhange (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The part about Blithe isn't really that big of a part of the actual series though. Sure it's an inaccuracy, but the producers were told by members of Easy Co. that he died at a certain time. The discrepancy is talked about in the article on Blithe already. I'm not sure it warrants much of a mention here. 99.169.250.133 (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMHIST may be of some use. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me !! Albert Blythe

Someone wrote:

The part about Blithe isn't really that big of a part of the actual series though. Sure it's an inaccuracy, but the producers were told by members of Easy Co. that he died at a certain time. The discrepancy is talked about in the article on Blithe already. I'm not sure it warrants much of a mention here.

The part about Blithe isn't really that big of a part of the actual series though.

Er it was the main theme of the entire third episode.

Sure it's an inaccuracy, but the producers were told by members of Easy Co. that he died at a certain time.

So that makes it OK? Maybe if this series was just a fictional account based on a few war stories. However it isn't and was never marketed as such (it was based on the book of the same name researched, but not cross checked, by Ambrose). Co-producer Tom Hanks has been quoted as saying he wanted to make a work that was both historically accurate and a reliable tale telling the exploits of a group of regualr GIs during WWII.

The discrepancy is talked about in the article on Blithe already. I'm not sure it warrants much of a mention here.

As mentioned above, this is what makes Wikipedia appear a joke. Everything on this site should be crossed referenced and linked to and from articles. Blithe's reported death in this miniseries is wrong. He didn't die just after WWII he in fact went onto fight in Korea. So left as it is, on this page it's a fact that he never recovered from his wounds and died in ignominy in 1947. However if you are bothered to go Blithe's article, it reveals that he didn't die and rose to the rank of Master Sgt.

I personally think that this is the second most ridiculous mistake in the entire series, (the other one is Easy Company being first into Berchtesgaden. It was, and always has been, units from the 3rd Infantry Division as noted in the division's war diary). In context, the reason for the lack of will on the part of the producers to change the third episode end card comes down to simply notability. I mean, who really was Albert Blithe. An unknown until this miniseries was made.

But there would be a rumpus if it was purported that Boreman escaped from Berlin and began working for the CIA or Hitler's double died in the bunker? Yet are these any more ridiculous because concern well known people? On the basis of notability, imagine the flipside if Custer was shown to have survived the Big Horn, or Davie Crockett got out the Alamo!

Albert Blythe didn't die as a result of wounds received during the Battle of Normandy. He instead recovered and became a decorated war hero which is now how he should be remembered.

Nevertheless, this debate (about real person cinematic accuracy) is similar to the one that raged after the release of the 1960s British film Zulu. It portrayed hero-cook Henry Hook VC as a malingering trouble maker where as in reality he was a teetotaller and model soldier. His descendents tried in vain to get some sort of recognition from the producers but to no avail. Even today audiences come away from the movie with the notion that the guy was a crook.

Even more sickeningly I would not like to be the family William Murdoch first officer on the RMS Titanic. Because of the blockbuster 1997 Titanic, most viewers come away with the belief that Murdoch took bribes, shot and killed passengers and then committed suicide. In fact survivors reported that he worked diligently until the end and was seen alive in the water after the ship went down. After film producers refused to take out Murdoch's suicide scene, studio executives had to fly to Murdoch's hometown in Scotland to issue an apology for the depiction to his surviving relatives.News story

So in conclusion it is for the notional idea of truth and accuracy that this Wikipedia article should note, and note quite clearly, that Blithe did not die as the miniseries suggests. His fate being an error. But sadly in reality, like the newspaper man notes wryly at the end of the film Who Shot Liberty Vallance: "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

I therefore suggest that if such a mistake about Blythe exists, it is right to question what else might also be inaccurate in Band of Brothers...does it not?

Easy peasy. See end of historical accuracy section. Kusonaga (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies and errors during filming

Both Ambrose's book and the resulting series have been criticized with numerous minor and some major inaccuracies, many noted by 101st veterans. Among the historical errors in the television series:

Episode 1: "Currahee"

• Thirteen non-commissioned officers in Easy Company submit a notice to resign their positions in the company. This could be considered mutiny, and was punishable by death under military law. The reason for this was their refusal to serve under their current commanding officer, Captain Herbert Sobel, whom many of the men considered to be inept as a combat leader. While Sobel was considered inept by many, and the 13 non-commissioned officers did not wish to serve with him, it has been stated that Amos Taylor, an Easy Company veteran has said:

"What was said in the miniseries, that all of the noncoms had turned in their stripes or said they were going to turn in their stripes and resign, was not true. Harris and Ranney went to (Richard) Winters-he was the one officer that everybody thought they could trust-and explained the situation to him. Nothing was said about the rest of the NCOs at the meeting."

However, Ambrose notes in his book that the noncoms did, in fact, threaten to turn in their stripes and resign if Sobel was not replaced. Richard Winters also writes in his book Beyond Band of Brothers: The war memoirs of Major Dick Winters (ISBN 9780425208137) that the resignation did in fact take place as depicted in the series.

• There is a board introducing 4 different German firearms; the Karabiner98k, MG42, MP40 and MP43. The MP43 (which was later named the MP44 and then Sturmgewehr 44) was not mass produced until July 1944. It would not have been a captured German weapon by the Allies in 1942; it was first designed in 1943.
• In the series, 1st Lt. Winters is assigned company XO at the time of his promotion to 1st LT. He was not made company XO until a few months later.
• In the series, Easy marches 12 miles every Friday night; they actually went on 35 mile marches.
• In this episode, Bill Guarnere is referred to as "Gonorrhea" twice (In the mess hall and on the SS Samaria). He was not called Gonorrhea until he arrived in England.

Episode 2: "Day of Days"

• Lieutenant Colonel Robert Strayer is referred to as a major twice in this episode, first by a soldier informing Winters and Compton that he is looking for Easy Company's CO and later by Winters during the briefing for the Brecourt Manor assault.
• In the series, Pvt. Hall lands alongside 1st Lt. Winters. Actually, Winters landed with another trooper, and Winters and Hall didn't meet up until Brecourt.
• Colonel Sink's Jeep driver, Private Gerald Loraine, goes to Brecourt Manor with Easy Company for the assault on the 88 millimeter guns (later identified as 105 mm). While the Germans are retreating, the miniseries shows Loraine shooting his rifle at the Germans and missing with all his shots. Seeing this, Sergeant Bill Guarnere reloaded his Thompson submachine-gun, shot the German and then insults Loraine, calling him a "jeep jockey". During the actual assault, however, Loraine killed the Germans after Guarnere missed. According to Ambrose's book, three Germans were running away, Loraine hit one, Winters hit one, and Guarnere missed his man, and then Winters shot the German in the back.

Episode 3: "Carentan"

• Albert Blithe fires twelve rounds from his M1 without reloading during the Battle of Bloody Gulch; the M1 can only hold eight rounds. The same inaccuracy recurs in the episode "Crossroads", when Captain Winters fires ten rounds from his M1 without reloading; however, some have argued that this is a misconception and the extra shots are the same shots but from a different camera angle.
• Blithe is shown to be wounded on D+25 (in the series), but got his Purple Heart (earned by being shot while investigating a farmhouse) on 25 June (D+19) and was awarded it on 29 June (D+23) in England. In the Ambrose book, Band of Brothers, he indicated that the shooting happened on 21 June (D+15). Easy Company was pulled off the line on 29 June (D+23), relieved by 83rd Infantry Division. They returned to England on 12 July (D+36).
• The end of episode three states: "Albert Blithe never recovered from the wounds he received in Normandy. He died in 1948". Fellow Easy Company Currahee veterans interviewed while writing the miniseries Band of Brothers had thought that Blithe did not recover from his wounds, which they mistakenly recalled as a neck wound (in actuality he was shot in the right shoulder). Albert Blithe remained on active duty, was awarded the Silver Star for gallantry in combat, and achieved the rank of Master Sergeant, married with two children. He died in December 1967 of complications of surgery for a perforated ulcer after attending a memorial ceremony in Bastogne and was buried in Arlington National Cemetery with full military honors.

Episode 4: "Replacements"

• A replacement Soldier refers to a unit citation as a "Presidential Unit Citation, for what the Regiment did in Normandy . . ." However, this award was known as the Distinguished Unit Citation following its establishment in 1942; in 1967 the name was changed to the Presidential Unit Citation. The replacement soldier would have received the award, however. While unit citations are permanently awarded to members of the unit at the time of the action for which the citation is awarded, all current members of the unit wear the unit's citations during the time they are members of that unit.
• Lt. Bob Brewer is shot in the throat by a German sniper outside of Nuenen. In reality, he was shot while the 506th entered Eindhoven. The British tanks in reality were all Cromwell tanks of the 23rd Hussars, but in the miniseries they are reduced to three Cromwells and three Shermans, presumably for budgetary reasons. Ambrose was actually inaccurate here, as it was actually the 15/19th King's Royal Hussars of the 11th Armoured Division in the field. This is a well documented event for the regiment.
• Lynn "Buck" Compton is loaded onto an army 6x6 truck after being shot through the buttocks, when he was actually loaded onto one of the two surviving Cromwell tanks. However, according to Call of Duty: My Life Before, During and After the Band of Brothers, Compton recalls being placed on the hood of a jeep.
• When the tanks are arriving to Nuenen, David Webster says that Vincent van Gogh was born there. In fact van Gogh only resided there from 1883 to 1885, van Gogh was born in Zundert. This is not a factual error with the series, however, as Webster himself believed that van Gogh was born in the town. It was Webster who was mistaken, but the scene is historically accurate.
• On several occasions in the series Private Webster translates German, a language he did not speak fluently, into English.
• The series shows that the British tanks entered Eindhoven on the same day as the 101st, but the 101st arrived the day before the British tanks.
• E Company and the 15/19th Hussars occupied Nuenen unharassed, receiving orders to march East to Helmond. Along the way, they make contact with the 107th Panzer Brigade, who were attacking West of Helmond, forcing them to fall back into Nuenen where they defended until darkness. In the miniseries, E Company and the Hussars encounter the Germans stationed in Nuenen instead, and are routed from the town.

Episode 7: "The Breaking Point"

• While the series depicts Malarkey being given a Luger after the death of Hoobler, in reality he found one himself. He also wanted to bring a Luger to his father and it is said he wanted to give one to his brother.
• During one of the artillery barrages Easy Company endures, George Luz crawls into the same foxhole as then First Sergeant Lipton, when in actuality it was another radio man.

Episode 8: "The Last Patrol"

• During this episode, David Webster was chosen to participate in the patrol for German prisoners but he was actually not and was watching the spectacle from Observation Post 2.
• The soldier who dove in on his own grenade during the patrol, Eugene Jackson, was screaming, "I don't want to die!" in the miniseries, but in Ambrose's book, he is said to be screaming out "Kill me!", due to the immense amount of pain he was enduring.
• After the patrol, Roy Cobb got drunk and made some remarks against Webster and was confronted by both Staff Sergeant Martin and 2nd Lieutenant Jones. This incident was actually much more severe. Cobb was actually confronted by Second Lieutenant Foley for being drunk and Cobb charged at Foley for this. It took two men to restrain him and Staff Sergeant Martin had to pull out his pistol and point it at Cobb. Cobb later faced a court-martial.
• Lt Jones had a longer service record with the 506th. He acquitted himself well in combat, earning 3 bronze service stars. He was wounded while leading a patrol but completed his mission successfully and was subsequently awarded the Purple Heart. This obviously goes against the series portraying him only accompanying Easy Company on one mission.

Episode 9: "Why We Fight"

• Donald Malarkey was incorrectly portrayed as being present at the concentration camp. Also, he was incorrectly portrayed as being present at the taking of Eagle's Nest in the episode "Points". In fact, Malarkey was recovering at a hospital due to illness.
• At the beginning of the episode the date is shown as April 12, at the end Captain Nixon says that Hitler has just shot himself. Hitler did not commit suicide until April 30.

Episode 10: "Points"

• It is stated that Technician Fifth Grade Joseph Liebgott became a San Francisco taxi driver after the war, but most accounts, including that of his son, state that Joseph Liebgott became a barber after returning home from the war.
• The series states that Easy Company was the first unit into Berchtesgaden and the Eagle's Nest, capturing the town and surrounding area without incident. Historians usually identify the first Allied troops to arrive as the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division who secured Berchtesgaden and the Berghof, followed four days later by the French 2nd Armored Division who secured the Eagle's Nest, then 1st Battalion of the 506th, led by Company "C." This, however, may be incorrect. The 2nd Battalion of the 506th came into Berchtesgaden by a different route and lost men in a skirmish with the crews of two German 88 mm guns.
• Controversy has come up in recent years as to precisely which unit captured Berchtesgaden, but in the book Beyond Band of Brothers, Major Dick Winters states "Major General John W. 'Iron Mike' O'Daniel's 3rd Infantry Division certainly seized neighboring Salzburg without opposition and may have had their lead elements enter Berchtesgaden before we (2nd Battalion, 506 PIR) arrived in force, but let the facts speak for themselves. If the 3rd Division was first into Berchtesgaden, where did they go? Berchtesgaden is a relatively small community. When I walked into the Berchtesgaden Hof with Lieutenant Welsh, neither of us saw anyone except the hotel staff. Goering's officers' club and wine cellar certainly would have drawn the attention of a Frenchman from Leclerc's 2nd Armored Division or a rifleman from the 3rd Division. I find it inconceivable to imagine that if the 3rd Division were there first, they left those beautiful Mercedes staff cars untouched for our men" (one staff car is in the Canadian War Museum).
• Major Winters accepts the surrender of a German Colonel, who offers him an ornate Luger pistol. In the scene, Winters tells him to keep his sidearm, but in the Bonus Features DVD, the real Winters recalls the incident and shows the pistol (a Walther PP) he accepted. In Ambrose's book of the same title, he describes how when Winters examined the firearm, he found it had never been fired, he hasn't fired it since, and that it will never be fired. He shows this firearm in the HBO documentary We Stand Alone Together: The Men of Easy Company. Also in the book Beyond Band of Brothers: The war memoirs of Major Dick Winters written by Cole. C. Kingseed with Major Dick Winters, it is said that the pistol was accepted, but the rank of the German soldier was a Major, not a Colonel.

Languages in infobox

Regarding the languages listed in the infobox, when are Spanish or Italian ever heard in this show? Or, am I misunderstanding something? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Biggest Brother

How is Biggest Brother the second of Winters' memoirs? My first problem with that is that it came out in 2005 and Beyond Band of Brothers came out in 2006. That puts Biggest Brother on the market first, second would suggest it hit the market after Beyond Band of Brothers. My second problem, and it's an even bigger problem, is that a memoir is a type of autobiography. Alexander interviewed Winters, but his book is a biography where as Winters' book is indeed a memoir. -annonymous 1/06/2011 3:28 AM EST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.8.201 (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Fallon

According to IMDB http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0266422/ that is Jimmy Fallon making a appearance in the opening scene of Crossroads.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken keisel (talk • contribs)

Sure, but it is still a non notable cameo appearance. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 20:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree. The show was not known for appearances by well-know actors. Fallon's appearance is the lone exception, and the only dramatic role Fallon has played. Both make it notable. Ken keisel (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Xeworlebi, the role is very minor, taking up, perhaps, 5 minutes of screen time. That is not notable. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Using that rule Marlon Brando should be removed from the credits of "Superman: the Movie" because he's onscreen for less than 5 minutes. It's not the ammount of screen time that matters, it's the degree to which the appearance is important. In Fallon's case, it's his only dramatic screen appearance, and the only guest appearance by a major performer in the whole miniseries. Ken keisel (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact that it is his only dramatic performance is relevant to him as an actor, but is not relevant to the article about this show. Fallon is also not a "major performer," which Brando most certainly is. You also forget the guest appearance by Tom Hanks' son, Colin, who appears in one episode. A much more important guest starring role than Fallon's. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Well said RepublicanJacobite. "The show was not known for appearances by well-know actors", it was definitely not known for Fallon's appearance. His character was not notable, and his appearance, as a talk show host (not sure what he did in 2001, but he was definitely not as known as he is now, and even now it's a very narrow set of people, namely those who watch his show), is also non notable. It might be a high point of his career, but is a non-point for the show. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 01:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I would encourage both of you to examine other articles on movie/TV shows in which up-and-coming actors have made brief appearances. Their appearance IS noted in the articles on the film/TV show because the work represents an early step in their carreer. A good example is the film Little Shop of Horrors where Jack Nicholson made an appearance for less than five minutes, but his appearance is mentioned whenever the film is described. Fallon was already known for several seasons on "Saturday Night Live" co-hosting the "Weekend Update" with actress Tina Fey when he made this appearance in "Band of Brothers". Since appearing in BoB he has starred in two motion pictures, and currently hosts his own late night talk show. The appearance of Tom Hank's son is also worthy of mention in this article. Ken keisel (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"The show was not known for appearances by well-know actors. Fallon's appearance is the lone exception, and the only dramatic role Fallon has played." I have to disagree that Fallon's appearance is the lone exception. Unless you don't think Tom Hanks is a well-known director. Fallon had a line or two for his appearance and he was easy to find. But Hanks's role was more of a "Blink and you'll miss it" thing. He appears as one of the British officers in the celebration scene following Easy's aiding the British paratroopers trapped behind the lines in Crossroads. He's on-screen for all of five seconds at max as a background character. If Fallon should be considered as added for his cameo, then Hank's should as well even though his cameo was without any lines or long enough to more readily notice him. Also, do we not count some of the folks in starring roles as appearing in this mini series, folks who had already had a name as an actor? -annonymous 1/09/2012 1:33 AM EST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.14.97 (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Cast and characters

There have been some additions recently to the cast and characters list. That list is only for actors credited in the opening of the show, and should not list anyone who is not so credited. Let's make sure that list remains accurate. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Cast and Characters

In the Cast and Characters section, there appears to be a mention of a character called "Private Mcintosh". I've watched the series through at least five times and don't recall him ever being mentioned, let alone have any lines. Should he be mentioned in the section? NevilleHope (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I have no recollection of a character by that name, nor does the actor's name look familiar. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of characters missing in this article. Hoobler being the most notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.31.86 (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The Brothers in Arms series of video games "steals" the Band of Brothers "Part X" title card for mission titles

Like I said in the headline, the Brothers in Arms series of video games "steals" the Band of Brothers "Part X" title card for mission titles, you can see that for yourselves in numerous gameplay videos on YouTube. --Marce 23:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Peabody Award

Until today, the Awards section claimed that the show "was selected for a Peabody Award for '...relying on both history and memory to create a new tribute to those who fought to preserve liberty.'" As I have not been able to find a reliable source for this, I have removed that content. Longwayround (talk) 11:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. Found a source. Longwayround (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Mislabelled unit insignia

It is not the 'logo' of Company E, it is the Distinctive Unit Insignia (often miscalled regimental crest) for all companies of the 506th PIR. ¹ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.216.22.156 (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Historical accuracy section

I've removed this twice (1, 2) now, since the references do not match the claims being made. To be clear, we cannot point out inaccuracies within the series, because we are not citable sources. In short, just because we notice a historical inaccuracy doesn't mean we can note it. We can only reference someone from a reliable source speaking about the series pointing out the errors. This allows us to avoid Original Research and, more specifically, Synthesis.
For example, the statement about Abert Blythe's death being incorrect was an editor noting the difference between the program and military records. We need to find a source that points out that discrepancy. The same applies to Liebgott's religion and the actual date of Hitler's death. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. We can't point out inaccuracies that are referenced by citeable sources because those sources don't directly reference the series? That makes no sense to me. There are numerous sources indicating Blithe's actual date of death, several of which refer to the Ambrose novel being mistaken about it, and Liebgott's religion is directly confirmed by his family members. How are these not actual sources and how do these sources not match the claims being made? The claim states that Liebgott was not Jewish, but Roman Catholic. The source states that Liebgott was not Jewish, but Roman Catholic. What is the problem here? Morhange (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It's the way the policy works. You have to avoid butting two claims together to make a composite statement. eg source A says "Smith was born in Oakland in 1895", B says "Smith was born in San Jose", you can't then write "A says Smith was born in Oakland but (s)he was actually born in San Jose". For that example one would be looking for a reliable source that addressed the issue directly and the holy grail of a source would read something like "it was initially believed that Smith was born in Oakland but modern research puts their birth in San Jose". Issues of Historical Inaccuracy in works of fiction (however based on real events) can be tricky because writers may combine people, places and events to put across the story. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The Liebgott one then I can understand, but the post-episode bits where Blithe's death were meant to reflect historical fact. But it's fine, I reckon if people are looking for accurate information, they can always go to Liebgott and Blithe's articles. Morhange (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support the removal. This happens frequently in articles about film adaptations of books. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

"Fictionalizes the history"?

The lede says that the show "fictionalizes the history" of E Company, but this is not completely accurate. I think it would be better if that line read "dramatizes the history," and then further on in that paragraph more detail is given about the literary license that is taken. But, "fictionalizes" gives the impression that the entire show is fiction, which is clearly not the case. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

"Lede"? Shouldn't it be "lead"?--Marce 23:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

No - "lede" is the term for an introductory paragraph of an article. 67.59.61.153 (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)