Post by deros on Jun 29, 2010 19:21:54 GMT
what suggestions have we got for things that can reasonably be supposed to be the case but are in fact wide of the mark?
an easy example we all know is stuff like the subdued 101st patches in hamburger hill. Going on from that , how do we regard the supposition that helmet graffiti was a no no in the 101st, photgraphic evidence suggests that it was uncommon in the extreme and expressly forbidden.
Now I don't really mean hollywod particularly but for instance a generic practice like helmet graffiti taken and incorrectly applied by reenactors to a unit where it was a no no and I am not talking howlers like green straight pocket BDU or ERDL helmet covers.. see a seperate thread for that. I am talking reasonable small errors.
an easy example we all know is stuff like the subdued 101st patches in hamburger hill. Going on from that , how do we regard the supposition that helmet graffiti was a no no in the 101st, photgraphic evidence suggests that it was uncommon in the extreme and expressly forbidden.
Now I don't really mean hollywod particularly but for instance a generic practice like helmet graffiti taken and incorrectly applied by reenactors to a unit where it was a no no and I am not talking howlers like green straight pocket BDU or ERDL helmet covers.. see a seperate thread for that. I am talking reasonable small errors.