I'm with you on the US tendency to re-write history, particularly in film; Braveheart, and U571 being particularly egregious examples.

Was BoB guilty of the same crimes, or did it just focus on US units, to follow their stories and create a narrative? I'm not familiar with the facts of the conflicts that were featured in the series in sufficient detail to form a view, so it's a genuine question.

It followed the US units. I'd highly recommend you give it a go to judge for yourself, too.

I have - watched it ages ago and loved it.

Ah I wasn't sure if you were asking the question as someone who hadn't seen it. I can't believe it took me so long to get around to it.

It's what I seem to do with all TV shows really though..

It was the story of a group of volunteer US airbourne troops and to my limited knowledge historically accurate and in my opinion far from jingoistic.

There is one scene where the US troops are sent to escort British Paratroopers from Arnem back to safety. The two commanders meet up at night and the US commander asks the British one where his troops are. The US guy is stunned as with a signal hundreds of British paratroopers emerge from all around. To me that was tribute to the skill and fieldcraft of the British forces that were within feet of the the US airbourne unit, who didn't even know they were there.

Ambrose had already written a book on UK Airbourne forces (Pegasus Bridge) and Band of Brothers was intended as telling the story of Airbourne forces contribution in WW2 from the US perspective.

For me it is one of the finest TV series ever.

Seeing as it's based on accounts of the experiences of Easy Company of the 101st as related by the veterans and in conjunction with historical records and other autobiographies, it's actually considered to be very accurate and is pretty highly regarded by the troops themselves. It's not a wide account of the Allies during the campaign, but a close examination of a small group of men - there is no reason to mention other Allies much at all.

Private Ryan, of the other hand, was indeed over-hyped and over-dramatic according to many veterans.

I would absolutely urge anyone planning on watching Band of Brothers for the first time to read the Ambrose book first. It delivers far more insight and allows you to relate to the characters of the TV series far more deeply.

That said, Ambrose didn't actually think much of the British soldier in WWII. His view was that the British were exhausted by 1944 and were still marked by the horrendous losses of WWI - therefore less willing to expose themselves to danger or take risks, whereas the Americans were 'fresh' and made more impressive advances due to their relative lack of exposure to the dangers - and of course they had Patton driving the Third Army forward. He felt that the war could have ended earlier had the British pushed themselves as the Americans did.

I love to see Pegasus Bridge made into a movie .

One of the finest things ever put to film for me. The book is also a thoroughly good read. I have watched The Pacific and enjoyed it although I have never felt inclined to re-watch it where as I re-watch BoB at least a couple of times a year.

If you haven't seen it watch out for early roles for such (now) Hollywood luminaries as Tom Hardy, Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy.

Apparently and according to Ambrose... a US officer said of the above(British planned) operation you wouldn't want a limey in the trench next to you but they were bloody good planners.

Maj John Howard was not very happy with the Pegasus Bridge book and even before Ambrose had it published.He requested that Ambrose make changes. Ambrose being the bloody know all would not make the changes and at a later date admitted he was wrong not to.