Factual error: At the point when Ryan transfers the points to divert the train, through the fuel dump being bombed, the light simulation of the passing train is of lit carriages, not trucks. (01:46:00 - 01:49:00)
Factual error: Sergeant Bostick tells Colonel Ryan he is from the 113th Armored Division. The U.S. Army never had a 113th Armored Division in WW2.
Factual error: Sgt. Bostick wears the unit patch of the U.S. Army's 4th Armored Division. The movie takes place in 1943, but the 4th Armored never served in North Africa, Sicily, or Italy, hitting the beaches of Normandy, France, on July 11th, 1944 after being stationed and training in England.
Factual error: In reality, they would have never got to Switzerland on the route they were taking, as the standard gauge line they were on ends in the Italian town of Tirano, and a narrow gauge line crosses the border. The depiction of the line is, in any case, completely false, as it had (and has) overhead electrification.
Suggested correction: Is this actually an error? I believe the British Regiment who feature in this film are The Ninth Fusiliers. Well, there never has been a Ninth Fusiliers in the British army, either! For that matter, there never was a Colonel Joseph L Ryan, or a Major Eric Fincham, or a Major Battaglia. While this film is set in the Second World War, it is openly admitted that it is a wholly fictional story. Some Second World War films (A Bridge Too Far; The Longest Day; The Battle Of the Bulge) were made to recreate historical events, and so refer to soldiers and military units who existed. Other Second World War films like this one (Sahara, Escape To Victory, Ice Cold In Alex) while referencing actual events, and, showing sequences of events that are not beyond probability, are still stories. Since this is a fictional, imagined story, is it acceptable for soldiers to serve with fictional regiments or imaginary fighting units?
While some fictional accounts can be taken for granted and not counted as errors (even films based on true stories can have fictional characters), there are limits when setting films in the past. To have a 113th Armored Division is a valid mistake as the highest number in WWII was the 20th Armored Division, unlike Infantry Divisions that went into the 100's. This could almost be the same as giving a character an 8 or 11 number phone number.
Bishop73
The anonymous drive by hit and run "contributor" (not referring to you, Bishop73) may not have seen another post I made about Sgt. Bostick wearing a 4th Armored Division patch on his uniform: he says he is from the 113th A.D. (which never existed) but wears the 4th A.D. patch, which did exist in WW2, but did not see service until France in 1944.
Scott215