I’m not a World War II history buff, but I might be on the way to being one. As a fan of pop history, I’ve watched both Band of Brothers and The Pacific multiple times. Recently, I watched them both again, nearly back to back, so I wanted to compare and contrast them.
To me, it’s tough saying one is better than the other. I enjoy both, but admittedly I enjoy them for different reasons. Both Band of Brothers and The Pacific are master class mini-series. They represent some of the best TV ever made. Both were produced by Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks and were hosted by HBO hosted. And both series are a serious historical look at the second World War.
That’s what they have in common, but they tell different stories. I can appreciate a creative team not wanting to make the same series and only change the setting. This is where the big divide between the shows starts and why opinions are often split amongst fans.
Band of Brothers versus The Pacific – The source material
The shows depict actual events and use the accounts of veterans who were there to form the basis of the narrative. For Band of Brothers, they went beyond that. The historian Stephen Ambrose sat down and interviewed the men of Easy Company, the company portrayed in the series, getting first-hand accounts of the men who went there and did that. The actors even met or spoke with the men they would be playing.
The Pacific was filmed in 2010 and was based largely on two memoirs from lower enlisted infantrymen. Robert Leckie’s Helmet for My Pillow and Eugene Sledge’s With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa. The showrunners also used Red Blood, Black Sand by Chuck Tatum to help tell the story of John Basilone.
Related: These are the 5 TV shows to watch right now
The story follows Leckie, Sledge, and Basilone. Leckie and Sledge both died in 2001, and Basilone died in WWII, so the series didn’t get the benefit of interviewing these men. Stephen Ambrose, the historian who helped create Band of Brothers, passed away in 2002 as well. This obviously leads to a different way to tell a story.
Band of Brothers follows Easy company throughout the war. The series takes place over roughly one year, not counting the predeployment training. The Pacific takes place over three years and follows three separate Marines in different regiments of the 1st Marine Division.
Related: Letters to Loretta: Life in German POW camp Stalag 17B
Their tone and content
Band of Brothers and The Pacific are very different in their tones.
Band of Brothers is a bit cleaner in its approach. It’s a story of heroic men and their brotherhood. It’s the force that unites them that becomes the mainstay of the series and the series’ tone is noble.
The Pacific takes a brutal tone, with gore and violence being heavily featured. It doesn’t pull punches, and you see the human cost of war. We see the Marines and how the war was shaping their minds and the trauma it brought them. At the beginning of the show, Eugene Sledge would fit in perfectly with the cast of Band of Brothers. He’s noble and idealistic, but by the end, he’s a killer.
Band of Brothers focuses on the war as a whole. The Pacific focuses more on the characters and how the war affects them. The men portrayed in Band of Brothers were still alive when the show was made and we have their accounts. While this provides some accurate information, it’s also a bit restrictive. With The Pacific, we have the memories of men who’d recently returned from war, and since they had passed, we only got their raw accounts.
While Band of Brothers focuses on the brotherhood of men at war, The Pacific focuses on the individual. The men in Band of Brothers are generally good men and good soldiers doing the right thing. In The Pacific, it’s not always clear. Lecky, for example, isn’t always a good “Marine” when on leave.
Related: Last WWII Medal of Honor recipient, Hershel ‘Woody’ Williams, passes away at 98
Their cinematography
This is where it’s an absolute tie. Both shows are shot brilliantly and beautifully. The sound is fantastic, and the action is clear and wonderful. Band of Brothers had a smaller budget than The Pacific by about 75 million, which shows: There are some beautiful sweeping scenes of The Pacific and some rather large and violent battles.
Band of Brothers shows us a frigid Europe, and The Pacific shows us a hot and brutal jungle. Both series do a great job of placing you into the environment and making you feel the cold nipping at the soldiers or the sweat barreling down their foreheads.
The uniforms and weaponry are authentic to the era, as are the tactics. There was clearly work put in to ensure both shows were accurate to the era.
Related: Zero: Did Japan have the best fighter plane of World War II?
My lasting thoughts
It’s tough to say if one is objectively better than the other. They are both period-piece mini-series focused on WWII. However, they are very different stories. I’m glad we have both of them, to be honest. I rewatch each one at least once every few years.
Band of Brothers inspires me. Who doesn’t choke up when the real Major Winters says: “Grandpa, were you a hero in the war?” Grandpa said, “No… but I served in a company of heroes.”‘
On the other hand, The Pacific takes the romanticism out of war, it shows its real brutality, and why we should try and abstain from it. It’s a cautionary tale in large parts.
Art should make you feel something, and both The Pacific and Band of Brothers make me feel.
I can’t pick which is better. Can you? If so, let us know below! But let us know why as well!
Read more from Sandboxx News
- Weapons used by both sides of World War II
- American Spies: How the US collects intelligence around the world
- The best war movies and shows (according to a Marine machine gunner)
- Letters to Loretta: An American B-17 bomber versus Nazi fighters
- The Fairbairn-Sykes dagger – A commando’s killing tool
‘Based on historically accurate events’ is gibberish. An event IS history. I suppose the intent is ‘based on allegedly accurate accounts of historical rvents.’ Fine. Now ask yourself how this would play: you come home at 2.00 a.m. and tell the wife ‘The following story is based on events I allege were actual…’
I watched both but to me the Pacific was better and obviously because I’m prejudiced. My Dad was in the Pacific in USMC Second Division. He was in Saipan, Tinian and Okinawa.
He described the climate and some of basic stories but spoke very little about it otherwise, nothing about the killing.
Band of Brothers is my #1. I had more of a connection to the events portrayed on screen.
Absolutely liked Band of Brothers better, but both were very good.
I agree. Both great series, but Band of Brothers is my favorite.
Band of Brothers is my all time favorite WWII show and I’ve watched just about all that have been made, in English anyway. I’ve also been interested in learning all about the men of Easy Co. depicted in Band of Brothers. So it’s not really true to claim the mini series is largely based on historically accurate events as told by the men who were there. I read an interview of Tom Hanks and he told of how displeased Dick Winters was with the inaccuracies being told. He told Winters it was considered very accurate in Hollywood if 10% of the story was true.
Both things can be, and are true at the same time.
BOB IS “largely based on historically accurate events as told by the men who were there.”
That part is absolutely true.
It’s also true that Major Winters was upset about some of the inaccuracies.
Some of those inaccuracies weren’t the fault of the filmmakers. Some were.
They Blythe story, for instance, came from men of Easy Company who were “sure” he died when the series said he did.
Anyway….it is completely true the series is “largely based on historically accurate events as told by the men who were there.”
Band of Brothers and The Pacific are equally awesome and impactful but, like the conflicts themselves, the Pacific was much harsher and difficult to watch. I
therefore find the comparison to be more about levels of watchable because Band of Brothers is a series I feel much more drawn to rewatch periodically but I’m not sure I’m up for going through that truly harsh journey with The Pacific again.
I like both series, pretty impossible to put one before the other.
May I suggest reading “China Marine” by Sledge? After the war his division was sent to China for a year to help organize the repatriation of the Japanese army.
Sledge, meets a Chinese doctor and his family and becomes very good friends with them; spending most evenings at their house talking and listening to classical music. It caps Sledge’s life of course starting out as a young eager marine, to a hardened fighter and now like a fine whiskey slowly curing in a cask. You, well I can, see him as becoming a good husband and father.
It’s quite a wonderful story and I sit down once a year, with anticipation, to treat myself to the experience.
I think it is both impossible and unfair to attempt to rate one series better than the other. The only common denominator is WWII. Otherwise, they are entirely different stories told under vastly different circumstances.
I rewatch both programs just about every year and always come away with the same feelings: Band of Brothers is strangely uplifting and the brutality of Pacific grinds you down, as it should.
Both series are superb for the story they tell.
They are both great and amazing ! They are simply the BEST !
Forgot Guadalcanal as an example of long term continuous combat for the Marines.
The article address a question I have asked myself many times. I served in the Navy for 30+years and come from a family of career officers ranging from the Spanish American War/Philippine Inserection, WWI/II, Korea, Vietnam up thru the 2nd Gulf War. I have read both Band of Brothers and Sledge’s book. I watch both series at least once a year since they were released. I think Band of Brothers strengths are the single source material and single unit focus as well as the author’s and producers ability to include the survivors in the series. Also Band of Brothers came first and set the bar. Pacific is much harder to watch due to the nature of combat in the Pacific theater. As other commentators have pointed out is would have been almost impossible to follow a Marine unit like Easy company from start to finish. Okinawa was as close to long term continuous combat the Marines experienced in the Pacific. Bottom line is that one is not better than the other, rather they reflect the different experience of combat in the two main theaters of WWII.
My 2 dads served in the Pacific,one anarmy medic embedded with Marines on Guadalcanal the other. Marine fighter pilot.Both came home with undiagnosed PTSD.War in the Pacific was beyond brutal.
One other major difference: the Marines of The Pacific on average were much younger than the Band of Brothers. Both great series.
I can’t say I favor either one over the other because I think they are both so damn good. I was stationed in Okinawa in the 80s and got to see old remnants of the war like pillboxes and cave openings and I am a huge WW2 Buff and find it all so interesting but am partial to the battles of the Pacific theater especially the huge naval battles where we dominated and got revenge against the Japanese navy but both series are well done and I think very realistic.
The Pacific in band of Brothers were absolutely fantastic in their historically accurate portrayal but we can’t forget about the US Navy in world war II especially in the Pacific that would be phenomenal if they can do a band of brothers that shows all the fighting that went on with the Navy ships in the Pacific especially the carrier Enterprise cv6 which was the one loan carrier for many months facing Japan during world war II that would be an awesome story for the Navy to be represented in this
The Navy had more killed in action at Battle of Okinawa than either the Army or Marines, which is seldom mentioned.
Also in the Solomons, by far (aka Guadacanal). There is only one scene showing the immense sacrifice of the Navy in the entire series ‘The Pacific’ as I recall. Which is OK, if they are still planning on doing one for each branch, ie ‘Mighty Eighth’ and whatever the Navy one will be. The Navy series is naturally going to be the most difficult and expensive to film, they seem to be going in order of how difficult each will be to capture on film technically and financially.
I just recently watched for the very first time Band of Brothers and the Pacific, and at first I have to admit, I felt let down because with the Pacific, there wasn’t any commentary from the actual men who fought in the pacific, because I liked how band of brothers has the actual courageous man who fought over in Europe. It makes the story more human because you see their expressions regarding what they went through. But then I started to watch Pacific, and I was sort of disappointed because it was totally different from band of the brothers regarding having gentlemen, who fought in the Pacific, speak about their experiences. But as the story continued, I first saw their insecurities and fear and apprehension, and there humanity but also a deep desire and hatred to avenge those poor defenseless soldiers who were murdered at Pearl Harbor, but the young men with there humanity disappear from these individual, and was it replaced by in the trenches men now and they were put in a situation, Of survival not only trying to survive fighting the Japanese but numerous diseases like malaria, dengue, fever, dysentery humidity and it was so engrossing that in a way, I didn’t miss the personal aspect that I in the end started not to miss the personal comments by the original soldiers, and yes, there was a lot of carnage, but that’s war you can’t, and I don’t want it sugarcoated because the Pacific documentary/series it needed it because it didn’t have gentlemen to comment about their experiences. You needed real live action first hand plus the war in the Pacific was way different regarding how the Germans just surrendered in the European war, but in the Pacific war the Japanese had their kamikaze pilots and Japanese soldiers, who refused to surrender because how fanatical they were in their love for emperor Hirohito, so you need to tell the story as it really happened, which is filled with again carnage and gore ! Every soldier who fought in the Pacific from generals to admirals to regular soldiers and pilots were so in disbelief how the Japanese fought in the Pacific. Plus I LOVE GENERAL DOUGLAS MAC ARTHUR WITH HIS PIPE AND HIS FAMOUS MONTRA ( I SHALL RETURN ) HIS NO NONSENSE ATTITUDE AND DEMEANOR!!!
To me, Band of Brothers is great (no doubt), but a little too much “golly-gee, Opie went to war and can’t cuss too much”.
The Pacific is FAR grittier, and, IMO, a far more realistic interpretation of platoon level combat.
I agree 👍, liked the Band of Brothers but the Pacific was more of what our men had to endure fighting in the jungle and the brainwashed Japanese
I got bored watching The Pacific. Gore, gore, gore and then more gore and bad character development. Band of Brothers, on the other hand, was honest, inspiring and one could certainly identify with the characters. Looks like The Pacific was an afterthought after Band of Brothers was so immensely successful…
I am a retired Marine of 53 years and a student of military history. I enjoy your article and just want to add my two cents worth. I too have enjoyed both series numerous times.
I think William Manchester’s book “Goodbye Darkness” may have been another source.
I am cautious about recommending Pacific to anyone without asking a few questions and giving some background.
Part of the background comes from an interview of Tom Hanks with Barbara Walters a few months after Pacific was released. Hanks told her that they were looking for a single unit similar to Easy Company that they could follow through the war. The best they could do was Third Marine Division. All of the smaller units were too shot up. In one battle one battalion of roughly 1500 men came out with only 80 effectives at the end of three weeks. Sledge gives similar numbers. Of his company of about 250 on Peleliu, only around 60 were available for Okinawa. There were a few transfers but not many. In contrast, only about half of the soldiers in Easy company (~150) were awarded a Purple Heart for being wounded. It is a miracle that Sledge went through both Peleliu and Okinawa without a scratch.
I ask whether they know about the overall flow of the Pacific war. The series can be confusing because it tries to cover the entire sweep of the war. Easy Company’s war lasted 11 months and is fairly easy to follow from D-Day. First MarDiv’s war lasted more than three years and was much more complicated.
The need to compress events also leads to some distortions. For instance, the battle of Okinawa lasted more than 30 days, only a handful of which were in the mud as shown in the movie.
Hanks also tried to make the case that the Pacific was a race war. I totally disagree. There is some credence only because the fighting was so vicious. The Japanese were usually unable to retreat and unwilling to surrender. The Marines knew they had to “kill them all” to win the fight. That gave them a completely different attitude about Japanese soldiers. However, in places like Saipan and Okinawa the Marines were very kind to the civilians. The WWII generation of Okinawans loved Americans in general and Marines specifically. I served 2 tours in Okinawa and rarely saw examples of racism beyond a few pejorative terms and some crude jokes. In contrast again, by the end in Western Europe Germans were surrendering by the thousands.
Different wars, different perspectives. I think both series are about as well done as they can be. Thanks.
Very good comment, especially as to difference in % of casualties and trigger time between Easy Company and Sledges K Company. One slight correction: Battle of Okinawa was nearly 3 months long (83days), which is a lot more than 30 days.
You are correct. Thanks.
Title drew me in but first words nearly took me out: “World War *1*”?
I saw that also, I assune ut is a typo.
Just like I made in my comment!
I have to say I disagree with the author, here, unfortunately. My grandfather fought under MacArthur in the Philippines, so I was really looking forward to it. I’d also read Eugene Sledge’s book many years ago and had seen him interviewed in documentaries.
However, I didn’t think “The Pacific” came close to “Band of Brothers.” The story line just wasn’t as good. At least to me, the characters weren’t as compelling. I think when you follow a small unit, like a company, the whole way through, you grow more attached to the characters because of their shared trials and friendships.
As an old Marine from the Vietnam era I can’t agree with your assessment more. I was very fortunate I was not sent to Vietnam but have friends who were. Those two series made an impression on me also. Both are excellent stories.
I watched both and both are great. I am a little partial to Band of brothers, because it probably saved my life. While in the war zone as a young army major OPS officer, I had been going non stop for over 8 months with very little sleep (allowing my subordinates time to rest), The only respite to de-stress was watching movies that the USO provided at the FOB. When I hit the latrine on the night I watched “breaking point”, I looked at the mirror and saw the I looked as tired as LT Buck Compton. That night I approached the Bn CDR and My NCO’s and told them I was taking 24 hours off duty.
thank you both for your service