I was watching some video clips about the WWII Battle of Kursk (1943). Most of the videos looked like they were just a narration with some irrelevant video patched in. For example, one sequence showed the German soldiers wearing winter uniforms (it was July and temps were in the 90’s). Another showed a Luftwaffe fighter attack-and the ME-109 airplanes had desert pattern camoflage. So it looks like the makers of these videos are not too concerned about historical accuracy-just put together a narrative, with some “close” video. Many of these are made by the History Channel-I guess real history is too expensive?
I would venture most documentaries are made primarily with stock footage. This was certainly the case with the ones I’ve been involved in.
Makes me wonder how many of those old battlefield films are labeled accurately with respect to time and location, if at all.
I’m also of the opinion that most producers and video technicians have absolutely no clue as to what they’re watching when they screen them.
But what about all those history films they watched in high school?
Oh.
No kidding. An entire reel was flopped in Lawrence of Arabia.
Lots more here in the film itself, including later-model guns, a cab-over truck, a jet contrail and a late '50s ship.
For The Great War in 1965, film was flipped so that the Germans were always facing left and British right. A lot of rifles with the bolts on the left.
The World at War is highly accurate and highly entertaining,
But check out the bonus features in the box set about the making of the series. They reveal how most of the original footage was silent and they added sound effects to all of it.
Try Soviet Storm: WWII in the East if you don’t mind re-enactments with some rather bad CGI vehicles.