Question for you military types from a non-veteran

[Jack Cook]

However, while I don't know (or care) I bet there's several Medal of Honour award ceremonies been included in US made films over the years; anyone care to prove or disprove the film aspect?

JAG-Navy Seal Lt and USMC Corp Guernsey from G-Canal
Courage Under Fire
Heartbreak Ridge

[Robbie Roberts]

Also what's 'accurate'? Both (for instance) Patton and Montgomery were 'improperly dressed' according to the uniform regs of their time, so representing them accurately isn't accurate to the rules.

Actually, both Montgomery and Patton were properly dressed according to the regs of their time: remember General Officers(as opposed to field or company grade) were accorded a bit more leeway as regarded their uniform.

Pretty much everything they wore was of issue design origin. Patton routinely wore Jodphurs- riding trousers and high top riding boots, which were part of the officer's uniform selection. Also, his pistols- while Ivory handled, were basically a private purchase version of the Army .45. The belt was standard General Officer Pattern, as were the holsters. (I have seen these on current Generals in BDU, albeit with black, rather than brown leather.) His B-3 style jacket was a version available to tankers. He dressed with a bit more fair, but still, pretty well along standard lines. And usually a dress uniform, (or dressier uniform) rather than field uniforms- a General has such prerogative, and he believed a Soldier should LOOK like a Soldier- hence the reason 3rd Army had a fine for anyone caught(even in battle) without a tie. The only uniform I could even conceive of belong out of regs would have been his "Green Hornet" tanker costume. Luckily, never adopted by the military...

As to Montgomery, while I am never one to defend him much,(I am a Patton fan), a British General officer or Field Marshall also has the authority to dress as desired. His omnipresent sweater was regular British Army issue. His beret, while only requiring the insignia of a General or FM, also bore the badges of those units with whom he was currently serving. Again- this was for esprit d'corps with his men. What he wore was issue, or private purchase...

A great example of pushing the limits was
the late Gen. Robin Olds, USAF's mustache when he was a Colonel in Viet Nam...

Robbie

[b29flteng]

Forrest Gump had a CMH ceremony too.

[Jack Cook]

A great example of pushing the limits was
the late Gen. Robin Olds, USAF's mustache when he was a Colonel in Viet Nam...

But of course there's nothing like a full beard
Ens "Big Jim" Streig VF-17

[JDK]

Good post Robbie, good points. As to Patton or Montgomery, they were both deeply flawed men, who achieved great things. Let's just say they aren't on my list of historical figures I'd like to meet, both having a greater sense of self worth than the analysis showed.

As to Montgomery, while I am never one to defend him much,(I am a Patton fan), a British General officer or Field Marshall also has the authority to dress as desired. His omnipresent sweater was regular British Army issue. His beret, while only requiring the insignia of a General or FM, also bore the badges of those units with whom he was currently serving. Again- this was for esprit d'corps with his men. What he wore was issue, or private purchase...

I'm certainly no uniform expert, and so I'll take your view on Patton, but I think you can either have 'following the regs' or 'leeway', not both. In Montgomery's case he was very aware of what we today call spin, or PR; there's no good uniform reason for him to wear a beret or a second badge (he also wore multiple badges on an Australian slouch hat before adopting the beret) as to two badges for serving 'with' those units, no, that's not on. I can't think of another British Empire senior solder who thought that justifiable.

Then there was the Orde Wingate of the Chindits who apparently thought nude was a good military uniform.

Be that as it may, the point in this context is both that representing these men on screen requires significant deviation from a standard requirement of the time (who else dressed like Patton with two pistols?) and if you created your own fictional US or British Army General with similar dress quirks, you'd be shouted down by the authenticisists (?!) except these guys were real!

I presume George C Scott wore the correct medal ribbons for Patton, but it's a pity they didn't decide the keep the real man's squeaky voice in the Hollywood version. Only Mad Magazine would dare to suggest a General with two six guns and a squeaky voice. Film: Patton on the Viennese couch ( 18 )

Cheers,

[tom d. friedman]

a valid point. patton's photos project a powerful image, but his voice was like a squeaky mouse. perhaps a away to combat a hangup?? none the less he was a military genius.

[Randy Haskin]

I agree that there is no "rule" I've ever heard of that keeps movies from having accurate uniforms. Ultimately, there are decisions about costumes, dialogue, actions that are made by non-military people OTHER than the director, EVEN if there is a military advisor there trying to keep it real. Movies are all about the $, and ultimately it's those people who are going to decide, and the vast majority of them are not military.

As an example, there were CRAPLOADS of Navy pilots involved with Top Gun, and the original script is even pretty realistic with respect to the flying communications and such (and it's a way better story, too!), but by the time it made it through the director's lens and the editor's edit...the turkey we all know today is what happened....advisors, cooperation from the Navy, and all.

There is no way that Stolen Valor has one shred of application toward a movie. Nobody is going to arrest Tom Hanks for playing Forrest Gump...unless Hanks starts parading around a MoH around his neck at the next movie premiere and claiming that Nixon gave it to HIM.

[Robbie Roberts]

Good post Robbie, good points. As to Patton or Montgomery, they were both deeply flawed men, who achieved great things. Let's just say they aren't on my list of historical figures I'd like to meet, both having a greater sense of self worth than the analysis showed.

I would have enjoyed meeting Patton- he was one of the finest officers the US Army EVER produced. And you do not get to be a good General Officer without a sense of self worth as you called it- you have to have confidence and belief that you can accomplish what you need to, or you end up fluttering in the wind, and losing. He did a heck of a lot- and recent anaysis reveals he suffered from dyslexia, a handicap if ever there was one. And yet he still accomplished great things, and was the right man in the right place at the time...

As to Montgomery, he was a prick. Just ask the other cadet at Sandhurst he set on fire...

In Montgomery's case he was very aware of what we today call spin, or PR; there's no good uniform reason for him to wear a beret or a second badge (he also wore multiple badges on an Australian slouch hat before adopting the beret) as to two badges for serving 'with' those units, no, that's not on. I can't think of another British Empire senior solder who thought that justifiable.

The beret was also standard issue to British tankers- black beret. The British were far ahead of the US in the issue of berets for their forces: tankers had black, SAS had sand color, although it was later changed to the Airborne maroon(and original/older members kept wearing their sand berets) General Service beret was OD, RM wore forest green. So there was a good reason for him to wear the beret- it was part of the uniform! As to the badges, I'd have to take a look, there may have been others.

I presume George C Scott wore the correct medal ribbons for Patton, but it's a pity they didn't decide the keep the real man's squeaky voice in the Hollywood version. Only Mad Magazine would dare to suggest a General with two six guns and a squeaky voice. Film: Patton on the Viennese couch

The medals in the movie "Patton"were correct- he had a lot of them, that is for sure, US, and Brit and French, Belgian and Luxembourg as well if I recall correctly. He had served in two world wars, among other things, in combat in both.

As to the high squeaky voice, that he had as well...

Robbie

[JDK]

I would have enjoyed meeting Patton- he was one of the finest officers the US Army EVER produced. And you do not get to be a good General Officer without a sense of self worth as you called it- you have to have confidence and belief that you can accomplish what you need to, or you end up fluttering in the wind, and losing. He did a heck of a lot- and recent anaysis reveals he suffered from dyslexia, a handicap if ever there was one. And yet he still accomplished great things, and was the right man in the right place at the time...

As to Montgomery, he was a prick. Just ask the other cadet at Sandhurst he set on fire...

Good points Robbie - but... Sorry, you can turn both latter statements around and they fits just as well. They were demonstrably both capable of and did achieve great things on the battlefield, as well as the failures one would expect from soldiers of their level. In both cases, they were vain, arrogant and believed themselves more capable than they were (as a cursory reading of any brief biography of either soldier shows) and put a lot of effort into self publicity covered with a 'motivating the troops' explanation, but it was, ultimately 'all about me' in each case. You are quite right an excess of self belief is important to success - however their remarkably similar belief amounting almost to omnipotence is as dangerous a flaw as being over modest.

Patton's dyslexia (alleged - it's been tagged onto many others in retrospect, and I suspect many of them would give the use of a modern diagnosis short shrift themselves) is no greater a handicap than other truly great men and women have overcome, while his belief in reincarnation is difficult to integrate with an ability to make a balanced assessment, rather than his relentless drive.

Patton was certainly a great solder in certain aspects, but his inability to know when to stop (again demonstrable in so many areas) made him fundamentally flawed, and unlikely to be of any use in more responsible or more senior roles that he got to. His desire to push on into Russia and the slapping incident are as inexcusable and show as poor judgement as Montgomery's many failings.

They were both lucky, too. Lucky to do the right thing at the right time but even more lucky not to have been canned at points when they unarguably did things which were unacceptable for soldiers in their positions. Better soldiers than Montgomery were downgraded for failures not of their making. I'm not so familiar with Patton's contemporaries. I'm quite prepared to cherry pick actual facts to show either were 'a prick' and likewise can do exactly the same to show they were among the greatest generals of W.W.II. Both views are exaggeration, and only part of two more complex people.

The beret was also standard issue to British tankers- black beret.

I'm well aware the beret was used by the Royal Armoured Corps - but Montgomery was an infantryman throughout his actual soldering. Also real ex-RAC officers of his level did not at any point in the history of the British Army wear berets in staff officer and above roles. Only Monty chose to wear something that made him stand out in any photograph, and from an arm of service he had little involvement in, only commanded and didn't understand very well. (Patton at least knew tanks, even if he thought they could run on air or he should get all available fuel...)

Monty's slouch hat, that he wore previous to the more notable and quickly identifiable beret is in the AWM Collection (AWM photos).

ID Number: RELAWM30701
Title: Australian Army slouch hat : Lieutenant General B L Montgomery, Eighth Army
Maker: Coronet Felts Pty Ltd
Object type: Headdress
Place made: Australia
Date made: 1940
Physical description: Brass; Fur felt; Leather; Australian khaki fur felt slouch hat without puggaree. The brim of the hat is bound in khaki grosgrain ribbon, and has an oxidised Australian 'rising sun' general service badge attached to the turned-up left hand side. There is a leather chinstrap and internal headband, the latter being impressed on the right hand side with the words 'CORONET FELTS PTY LTD 6 7/8 1940'. Twenty badges of formations operating under Montgomery's command in the Eighth Army are pinned around the crown of the hat. These badges include: Royal Horse Artillery, Royal Armoured Corps, Royal Tank Regiment, King's Royal Rifle Corps, Queen's Royal Regiment (West Surrey), Queen's Own Highlanders (Seaforth and Camerons), Royal Warwickshire Regiment, The Buffs (Royal East Kent Regiment), Sherwood Foresters (Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Regiment), Essex Regiment, Staffordshire Yeomanry (Queen's Own Royal Regiment), Queen's Own Royal West Kent Regiment, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, Edmonton Regiment (Canada), Saskatoon Regiment (Canada), New Zealand forces, and South African forces. The unidentified badges are possibly those of Polish units.
Summary: Australian fur felt slouch hat presented to Lieutenant General Bernard Law Montgomery, commander of the Eighth Army, by the 9th Australian Division. On 14 August 1942, Montgomery, paying his first visit to the Australians at the Tel el Eisa ridge near Alamein, requested a slouch hat. The hat was subsequently decorated with the badges of many of the units he visited, until it was superseded by a black beret, a gift from the Royal Tank Regiment. Many British personnel had considered the slouch hat to be entirely inappropriate, and must have been pleased to see it replaced. Evidently some Australian troops felt the same way, since Montgomery was reportedly described by members of 2/7 Field Regiment as 'a prize galah' who wore the hat 'jammed down on top of his head'. Others, however, felt that it was a valuable gesture of recognition to the many Dominion troops serving in the Eighth Army.

(A Gallah is a very stupid bird with a bright plume...)

ID Number: 044866
Physical description: Black & white
Summary: LIEUTENANT GENERAL B.L. MONTGOMERY WEARING AN AUSTRALIAN SLOUCH HAT WHICH WAS PRESENTED TO HIM ON 1942-08-14 AT 24TH BRIGADE HEADQUARTERS, 9TH AUSTRALIAN DIVISION, NEAR EL ALAMEIN. THE UNIT BADGES WERE ADDED BY THE GENERAL LATER.

Twenty badges on a hat might be 'motivational' to the troops, but has a lot more to do with 'look at me', IMHO.

I'm no great fan of either soldier personally, while I recognise, as Robbie said of Patton 'accomplished great things, and [both, IMHO] were the right man in the right place at the right time... '

Thankfully we had far more skilful soldiers in even more vital roles, like Eisenhower, who could have lost W.W.II down the cavern of US - UK differences, and whatever his shortcomings in soldering achieved diplomatic successes neither Montgomery or Patton could have got near. In Montgomery's field, I'd present his junior, Lieutenant-General Sir Brian Horrocks, who was a far better human being and a very very good soldier. (Entitled to wear an armoured corps beret, but despite serving at the front did not regard it as appropriate dress for rear echelon work.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Horrocks

(Note the photos showing him wearing his RAC beret while in a tank, and an officers cap otherwise...)

Good discussion but rather off topic, sorry! However you've answered the original question in Patton's medals for the film, so I guess you get an extra point for sticking to the topic!

Regards,

[Robbie Roberts]

Good points Robbie - but... Sorry, you can turn both latter statements around and they fits just as well. They were demonstrably both capable of and did achieve great things on the battlefield, as well as the failures one would expect from soldiers of their level. In both cases, they were vain, arrogant and believed themselves more capable than they were (as a cursory reading of any brief biography of either soldier shows) and put a lot of effort into self publicity covered with a 'motivating the troops' explanation, but it was, ultimately 'all about me' in each case. You are quite right an excess of self belief is important to success - however their remarkably similar belief amounting almost to omnipotence is as dangerous a flaw as being over modest.

Agreed- Both were vain and arrogant(and could be a prick...lol...)- but that is the fruit of superior self confidence- to the point of excess self belief... But it worked for them, and I view them as an advantage- the general who believes they can do the impossible will do more than the one who can see his own limitations, and will always strive higher. The man who does not know his own limits will never know when he's exceeded them!

...

Patton was certainly a great solder in certain aspects, but his inability to know when to stop (again demonstrable in so many areas) made him fundamentally flawed, and unlikely to be of any use in more responsible or more senior roles that he got to. His desire to push on into Russia and the slapping incident are as inexcusable and show as poor judgement as Montgomery's many failings.

I support the idea that slapping the soldier was the right thing to do. Had that man broken and run under fire, others may have followed. What he did was militarily acceptable, and a proven concept. Cowardice begets cowardice, and slaping a soldier to bring him back to reality is sometimes the only way. Patton's problem was the people who saw this were not fully military, but military doctors... I would have had no problem had I been there. It has been said that that slapped soldier did more to win the war than many others after... As to pushing on to Russia, I'd have supported that- but only to the point of the pre-1938 borders: At that time, we were just as strong, if not stronger than the Russian military: was had weapons the sheer magnitude of which would have been valuable on the battlefield, and we weren't then afraid to use them. Had we pushed the Russian Army back into Russia, and secured the nations which fell first(Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc.) then many millions of people would not have spent over 50 years under the heel of the Soviet Union- people who had already suffered under the Nazis, and who had looked to the Allies to bring them Freedom, not 50 years of oppression by Communists. We had the men, the equipment, the knowledge and technology to have succeeded in pushing them back. Had we tried to invade Russia proper, then we would have encountered the same problems Napoleon and Hitler both did...

They were both lucky, too. Lucky to do the right thing at the right time but even more lucky not to have been canned at points when they unarguably did things which were unacceptable for soldiers in their positions. Better soldiers than Montgomery were downgraded for failures not of their making. I'm not so familiar with Patton's contemporaries. I'm quite prepared to cherry pick actual facts to show either were 'a prick' and likewise can do exactly the same to show they were among the greatest generals of W.W.II. Both views are exaggeration, and only part of two more complex people.

Patton was very nearly canned for the soldier in Sicily incident, as well as the incident where he insulted the Russians by failing to include them in an off the record speech to a lady's group in England regarding the running of the word after the war. But Eisenhower knew Patton was the right man for jobs he had coming up- and kept him on... As to going too far, miitarily he succeded: He was told to bypass Metz when it had held him up for a short time- His response was classic Patton; "Have taken Metz with two divisions- Should I give it back?" He was flip, arrogant, and darn good at his job- killing Germans, and taking back the land. Montgomery was a Cavalry Officer, IIRC- going back to Sandhurst again, the speech pattern he used was an affected idiosyncrasy used by cavalry officers of the Edwardian period- basically just a way for them to stand out. He knew how to use politics and infighting to his advantage, as well as how to take a different tack when he could not get what he needed- to attack from a different flank to achieve his personal aims. However, his methods were too finely refined to be able to turn an entire army in a flanking maneuver- as Patton did during the early days of the Battle of the Bulge- and he tended to get mired while trying to consolidate his lines, and took far too long considering all the possible outcomes of every option.

I'm no great fan of either soldier personally, while I recognise, as Robbie said of Patton 'accomplished great things, and [both, IMHO] were the right man in the right place at the right time...

Thankfully we had far more skilful soldiers in even more vital roles, like Eisenhower, who could have lost W.W.II down the cavern of US - UK differences, and whatever his shortcomings in soldering achieved diplomatic successes neither Montgomery or Patton could have got near. In Montgomery's field, I'd present his junior, Lieutenant-General Sir Brian Horrocks, who was a far better human being and a very very good soldier. (Entitled to wear an armoured corps beret, but despite serving at the front did not regard it as appropriate dress for rear echelon work.)

Yes- Patton achieved exactly the right position for his temperament- He would never have worked out as Supreme Allied Commander. He had trained himself his whole life to lead men in combat- not to direct the overall operation. He would have failed miserably at any job higher than commander of the Third US Army. Eisenhower had pretty much always been a staff officer- especially under MacArthur in the 1930s- and was more politically acquainted- he knew how to glad hand, and work with people of differing personalities, thus his ability to meld several different countries' militaries into a cohesive Allied force. Eisenhower was the right man for that job, and Patton was best suited as an Army Commander. The only job to which he could have gone, for which he was equally suited, was the one he ended up with- writing the history of the Second World War in Europe. Which he did very well.. Patton was lucky he died from the car accident which claimed his life- he would never have survived peace- it was not his forte.

Good discussion but rather off topic, sorry! However you've answered the original question in Patton's medals for the film, so I guess you get an extra point for sticking to the topic!

During the war, George Smith Patton, Jr. achieved what he needed to , in order to get the American Army where it needed to be. He planned, and fought, very well. While some people deride him as "Old Blood and Guts"
, the facts show he had far fewer casualties than many other general officers: he did not fight a static battle of attrition, or siege- he fought a mobile, hard hitting war: and this succeeded in keeping his army from getting bogged down for very long in any one place. His 4th Armored Division often would advance so far in a single day they had gone clean off the maps they'd been issued in the morning! The Germans may have invented the "Lightning War" concept, but Patton's men perfected it. And the 4th Armored was the most loyal unit he had- the army top brass were worried they might mutiny had Patton been removed from his position, so they were broken up, and shipped home with different units, so they could not maintain a cohesive military unit once back in the USA. Pattons life was his troops- he was hard on them, he treated them all as Professional Soldiers, trained them to accomplish the impossible, and refused to accept any less of them than their very best- and he was well rewarded by their performance. And for that, he was awarded his multitudes of medals.

Speaking as a former soldier, and Cavalryman(19D10MDARNG), I would have been proud to serve under Patton...

[tom d. friedman]

patton & monty were both prima donnas with huge egos but still military geniuses. monty was more timid & cautious in battle, while patton's biggest tactical blunder was trying to orchestrate a rescue of his son in law who was a p.o.w., that mission was costly in lives & still failed anyway. patton had foresight, he saw the coming tensions in the post war world with the russians. monty was just plain spoiled like a baby, who did what ever it took to get his way.

[Steve Nelson]

Thanks for all the info guys...I didn't mean to start a pro vs anti Patton/Monty thread...

I never realized that Kelly's Hero's was that accurate. It's always been one of my favorite movies, but I ususally take as more of a fantasy flick set in WWII. Even my girlfriend liked it, but then how can you not like "Oddball?"

"Always with the negative waves, Moriarity. Have a little faith, baby. Have a little faith."

And DO NOT get me started on "Pearl Horror"...

SN

[Ken]

If I remember correctly, "The Final Countdown" does justice to the Navy uniform. "Apocalypse Now", for all its controversy, is accurate for Army (& Navy PBR) uniforms. "The Perfect Storm" came close with its HH-60 and C-130 crews although there were alot of flight helmet and NVG discrepancies in the various shots.

More recently, "Saving Private Ryan" and "Blackhawk Down" seem to pull out all the stops in achieving accuracy. Speilberg even collected audio from real German weapons for the soundtrack ... and check out the real MH-60s in BHD.

And Jimmy Stewart cut no corners in "Strategic Air Command" ...

Accuracy doesn't always mean "by the book" ... I'd rather see, as others mentioned, something authentic for how things really were.

Ken

Does the US military jurisdiction extend onto film sets? I don't think so; it certainly doesn't extend onto film sets in the UK, Europe or Australasia.

It doesn't, but for filming of The Pacific by HBO in Australia, the production company needed a real MoH for some scenes and a replica one for rehersals etc. A Queensland medal dealer was asked to source a real medal, and to make a copy. He did that, and sold them to the production company. He does hstill have the mould from the copy and then started to make copies and sell them on E-bay.....

Some time later he was contacted by the FBI field office in Sydney, and whilst they had no direct durisdiction, he was asked not to sell them due to the Stolen Valor act.

However, while I don't know (or care) I bet there's several Medal of Honour award ceremonies been included in US made films over the years; anyone care to prove or disprove the film aspect?

as above

[Robbie Roberts]

Monty's slouch hat, that he wore previous to the more notable and quickly identifiable beret is in the AWM Collection (AWM photos).

Just a quick note on the Monty slouch hat, after lo these many months... Taking a look, it reminds me of the British Army tradition(not sure how far back it goes, but have seen examples from WWI) among the enlisted to collect badges of units served alongside, & wear them on their belt- usually slots cut in for the rings to pass through, & then the pin run in. I've seen GIs subscribe to this tradition as well.

Perhaps this was Montgomery's variation?

Robbie