Ok, ok, fair enough ...

... but ask yourself a question - to the man every one of the surviving combat veterans demurred, deflected, even recoiled at the idea that they were heroes, inboth series. They reserved that distinction for the men killed, buried, and sacrificed in the dirt, sand and mud of the battlefields they fought in. Would THOSE guys, the warrior survivors, whom refused to talk about their experiences for decades, want this (or any) series to serve as a memorial to their own (or any surviving warrior's) post war psychological state, or to the combat deaths of their dear friends and comrades, whose sacrifice can only be properly presented through front line action sequences?

Perhaps more succinctly put, we, you and I, stand in absolute awe, dumbfounded at what the psychological burdens were that these men had to carry. But I almost feel like Sledge, Leckie, et al would rather we focus the story on the events surrounding those who didn't come back and the in-action combat of all those concerned ... and that involves front line story telling.

I guess what I'm saying is, if Sledge were alive to produce the miniseries, would he want us to delve into his inner psychic, or make a war movie properly glorifying/acknowledging the actions of those who didn't make it?

Jambo ... what would be the preference of the surviving Vets? To focus a renowned series on the survivor's personal post war stress, or their personal friend's sacrifice? I'm just saying ... the choice to focus on PTSD was that of Hanks & Spielberg, they say as much in the "making of" on disc 6. I just don't know of that'd be the preference of Sledgehammer, Leckie, Snafu ...

I'm more then willing to buy, watch, and talk about any series entitled "The PTSD and Background Information of WWII Marines." I just expected something different from a series entitled "The Pacific."