What is the most inaccurate historical war movie?

Question: What is the most inaccurate historical war movie?

Someone has already used "my" first choice, so I'll go with an almost equally bad choice:

The Alamo (1960)

So There are so many inaccuracies that you would be better off reading any book about the event than watching the movie.

Where do you start...?

The movie completely ignores the core reasons for the Texas Revolution - unsavory things like slavery, racism and a little greed are glossed over in favor of John Wayne (the movie's director and star)'s chauvinistic tale of the political stance of the time.

It wasn't until years after the siege that the Alamo appeared as it did in the movie - the front of the building even faced the wrong direction, going unnoticed unless mentioned by a character.

Most fighting takes place at night - in real life, fighting is over within an hour after dawn.

Almost all of the geographical locations in the movie are incorrect - a key example is when General Sam Houston placed the Sabine River between his location near the present city of Houston and the location of the Alamo time, and the Alamo was actually hundreds of miles away from the mission itself.

The film depicts all the defenders fighting to the death - according to historical records, what happened was that some defenders attempted to surrender, waving white flags and raising their hands, while others took the opportunity to open fire on the defenders. Mexican soldiers accepting surrender. This in turn angered the Mexicans, who ignored any further white flags and simply shot anyone they saw.

Siege commander William Travis never broke his sword - Travis was shot in the head and died hours before the fort fell On the west wall. The film shows this for dramatic effect, not historical reality.

This is a really bad movie that never seems to get better.

There are some really bad ones out there, especially from those eras when realism wasn't the goal. I would vote for "Battle of the Bulge" from 1965, before accuracy became a big issue.

It was filmed in Spain, the terrain bears no resemblance to the dense mountainous forests of the Ardennes, and the weather is nothing like the horrific weather of the winter of '44-'45; a Sherman tank is not a Sherman tank , the Tiger tank was not a Tiger tank (neither came close), Henry Fonda's reconnaissance plane was the wrong aircraft, the army was in the wrong place, the combat situation was all wrong, it left it out of the equation under Montgomery The British, ruling out Patton and his Third Army, also ruled out the decisive role of air power once the terrible weather cleared. Did I mention the fact that they didn't include the incredibly harsh winter weather that dominated this battle? Without that, I guess you can't miraculously get a break in the weather and allow the Thunder to wreak havoc.

Those were not Tiger tanks, and this was not the harshest winter in decades.

Columbia Pictures originally planned to make a relatively accurate film, so they sued Warner. As a result, Warner Pictures agreed not to mention Eisenhower, Montgomery, Bradley, Patton and other key figures participating in the war!

As an added horror, although it was shot on film, when it was released on VHS it was released in the abominable "pan and scan" TV format and was Heavily edited to fit a vhs tape.

It was so bad that Eisenhower, long retired, took the trouble to hold press conferences to denounce its inaccuracies. How bad is that. Still, it's quite popular. Facts, schmacts, right?

Oh, and with the help of the Pentagon, and with the cooperation of Eisenhower, there will be Columbia films shot at the appropriate locations, and their extensive documentation of the battle... because the dog has been released, so no Filmed.