Everything is good in cinema, except for one thing: the reliability of the image of individual events and phenomena relative to reality. One of the things cinematography systematically lies about is tanks. Things are especially bad when it comes to films dedicated to the Second World War. Here are three things that always hurt the eyes of those who understand at least something about the issue.
First, it should be noted that cinema in most cases does not set itself the task of a completely reliable image of some technical or tactical moments related to the military technique. Quite often the real state of affairs becomes a victim and a hostage of dramaturgy. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with sacrificing some realism in favor of spectacle or heightening the intensity of the narrative. Of course, the justice of such a sacrifice is always weighed on the scales of logic and objectivity in the context of the specific genre to which the film belongs. However, even in very good films, a number of things "catches the eye."
1. Scale, distance, order
The way tank battles are portrayed in the movies most often has nothing to do with tank battles in reality. Filmmakers like to drive tanks into very tight formations, which is impossible in a real battle. This is done with one single purpose - to make what is happening on the screen even more epic. At the same time, in most films, standing or moving tanks do not observe any tactical formation at all, even approximately. Finally, the most important thing is the distance of the battle. In films, gunfights often take place literally within the same frame. In fact, tanks in most cases conduct firefights at a distance of about 1 kilometer, and sometimes more.
>>>>Ideas for life | NOVATE.RU<<<<
2. Shooting on the go
Modern tanks can fire on the move with a fairly high efficiency rate. However, even now such a "trick" is a serious test for the crew. In most cases, the tank still shoots from a place from a pre-occupied position. During the Second World War, shooting on the move, especially at long distances, was a disaster at all. Most often, even the Germans could not afford such a luxury, in which the guns were better stabilized, and the optics of the sighting devices were noticeably better than those of everyone else.
3. "There is a break"
But worst of all things in the cinema are with the destruction of tanks. The most hackneyed movie cliché is stopping an enemy tank with a bunch of grenades or a Molotov cocktail. In theory, this is possible. Putting it into practice is astronomically difficult and extremely dangerous. Any attempt to get close to the tank will most likely end in death for the infantryman. The Soviet film Hot Snow of 1972 (spoiler: nothing good) perfectly illustrated what the attempts to jump out at the enemy tank with all their breasts and throw a “gift” at it lead and led to. The same is true with anti-tank rifles. It's funny to watch when a German tank easily stops one single crew of armor-piercers, and even shooting in the forehead. In fact, the tanks bombarded several crews with shots from the flags. Only in this case it was possible to count on some kind of success.
In continuation of the topic, read about T-62: the world's first tank that received a smoothbore gun.
A source: https://novate.ru/blogs/101021/60833/