My wife recorded this series for me saying that I would probably like it after serving in the army for 8 years.2 years boys and 6 regular.1959 -1968.I did enjoy it although like 'WOEFUL' there were a lot of errors.You got all sorts of people with you some good some bad.What made me laugh was the lad who could not co-ordinate his marching timing right.We had a few like that,but the thing they did miss out was the violence.If you made mistakes and caused the troop to do extra duties or square bashing,it was not uncommon to get a beating up in the middle of the night to get you to toe the line.And the NCOs and officers were not all nice and forgiving.The language was choice and roared at you at the highest a voice could get usually about 6 inches from your ear.The two most glaring errors were the lads saluting with no caps on this was definitely no no,and the lad carrying the union flag upside down.He would probably still be running round the square today.Even after this little rant I did enjoy it and it brought back happy memories.Well done
11 Reviews
Another good'un from UK!
sirandy-777-792613 January 2013
I had some suspicions during the first episode, but the series as a whole gets better and better. I was in the Army in late 70's, and the same methods were still used here, so I can much relate with the 'boys turned to men' mentality and what price the kids have to pay for it. Especially Pvt. Lomax brings back some good memories ;-) And what comes for the boys' Sergeant, well, nicely pictured.
But the overall truthfulness of the rookie life during the first months of their life at the Army is outstanding!
All in all, an excellent British drama, as usual.
Just 8/10 because of some 'love affairs' added in only for audience.
But the overall truthfulness of the rookie life during the first months of their life at the Army is outstanding!
All in all, an excellent British drama, as usual.
Just 8/10 because of some 'love affairs' added in only for audience.
Basic mistakes
tony_waters-619-9140514 September 2021
Many simple mistakes are pointed out elsewhere here. One that really grates with me is the way soldiers in the background are carrying their rifles at the slope in the American manner. Anyone who has served in the military or even in a cadet force where Lee Enfield rifles are used would spot that.
Woeful
chopendoz13 January 2013
I finished my army service in late 1959 - only a few months before the period that 'Privates' was set. Consequently, I was very interested in how the times were portrayed. What a disappointment. Presumably the location was based on Catterick Barracks (nowhere near the sea) the biggest training camp in the north. I was at Catterick in 1957 and remember it well. The writers are obviously not drawing upon personal experience and should really have done some better research into what it was like to be a National Serviceman. This was supposed to have been the last 'call up' of 1960 (November-December) but it did not seem like a north Yorkshire winter. It would have been very cold and wet. I lost count of the anomalies that I saw in the episodes that I have seen so far. Recruits would have been issued with their BD's (battle dress) on their first day - along with a haircut - and the BD's would then go straight to the tailors for a refit. Most recruits looked like a bag of potatoes tied in the middle. So, not only did recruits not have BD's to wear but they would NOT undertake any fatigues, exercise or training in BD's . They would wear 'denims' or 'fatigues' most of the time. Recruits don't run along the beach in BD's - they would wear PT kit. Both the drill sergeant and corporal would have tailored BD's and gleaming boots and be cleanshaven at all times - to set an example. Recruits would not have time to sit around the barracks smoking and chatting as they had many chores to do such as cleaning kit - polishing brass and polishing their boots to a high shine. Recruits in basic training do not take beer back to their barracks! They would not be issued with a rifle and bayonet! Soldiers would line up by height - tallest being the marker, so that there would be no obvious disparity. The tallest soldier would not stand next to the shortest. The unit seems to be lacking officers and NCO's. Their would be a lieutenant and a sergeant major (at least) The captain and the sergeant would not wear their uniform when off duty! The lance corporal who went AWOL, is cooking for the regimental dinner (all by himself). There would be a sergeant cook (at least) - in the Catering Corps. I could on. For me the lack of authenticity detracted from the story line. I suppose that it may seem wonderful to someone who has no idea of what it was like. It is sad that many depictions of the 60's, whether in print or film, were produced by people who simply weren't there - and had no idea. This series was one of them.
Low budget, some errors and PC silliness, but entertaining.
poadr13 January 2013
There are a lot of comments about this being historically inaccurate- and yes. There are a lot of picky authenticity things they should work on if they make another series of this- period and military details that need work.
Some of the 'PC' additions to history were rather tiresome. OF COURSE, the rich Tory boy is a villain. OF COURSE we have a biracial character. OF COURSE we have a Jewish character. OF COURSE our 'heroes' are all clearly labor or left leaning in their viewpoints. I am not trying to be racist here, but our biracial female character says her black father was in the British Army and left for America because they treated him so badly. Now, if this is 1960, and we will assume she is 19 or 20, that makes her time of conception around 1939... This is before immigrants from the west Indies came in the 50s. I have not (though I could be wrong) heard of any black/west Indian soldiers in the British Army before WWII. I also doubt that her British born father, even if he was black, would go to the US for better treatment than he would receive in the UK. Don't forget- this is before the civil rights movement. But this sort of historical inaccuracy is rampant in TV now. People have forgotten how it really was. Given the racism of the day, would a biracial woman even be working as a server on a military base in 1960?
But all of this aside, I found the show to be entertaining and worthy of a bigger budget and another season. There are characters who were very interesting and I think with the ending, there are many places this show could go.
Some of the 'PC' additions to history were rather tiresome. OF COURSE, the rich Tory boy is a villain. OF COURSE we have a biracial character. OF COURSE we have a Jewish character. OF COURSE our 'heroes' are all clearly labor or left leaning in their viewpoints. I am not trying to be racist here, but our biracial female character says her black father was in the British Army and left for America because they treated him so badly. Now, if this is 1960, and we will assume she is 19 or 20, that makes her time of conception around 1939... This is before immigrants from the west Indies came in the 50s. I have not (though I could be wrong) heard of any black/west Indian soldiers in the British Army before WWII. I also doubt that her British born father, even if he was black, would go to the US for better treatment than he would receive in the UK. Don't forget- this is before the civil rights movement. But this sort of historical inaccuracy is rampant in TV now. People have forgotten how it really was. Given the racism of the day, would a biracial woman even be working as a server on a military base in 1960?
But all of this aside, I found the show to be entertaining and worthy of a bigger budget and another season. There are characters who were very interesting and I think with the ending, there are many places this show could go.
Incorrect behaviour.
chrispalmeruk3 September 2021
I noticed very early on, that men were saluting without wearing headgear. While we all know and have seen the Americans do this on many occasions, never is this done in the British military. Although there is one exception, the Blues and Royals. Apart from the berets looking like flying saucers, I guess that's it.
Regiments arm badge - wrong
chrisjones-084763 September 2021
Why attempt a big canvas on a miniature budget?
pawebster17 January 2013
It is commendable that the BBC are willing to make drama for daytime afternoons. This is bound to be many times more expensive than the (yawn) house/antiques/cookery programmes they normally use to kill time. However, on this occasion they bit off far more than they could chew. They needed to recreate an army camp of half a century ago. To do this properly they would have had to employ many, many extras and pay out hundreds of thousands of pounds more for the programme than the 50p that they did in fact spend.
On top of that, they couldn't even get small (cheap) details right, as other reviewers have pointed out. Was decent military advice too expensive as well?
If you've got a small budget, make a small programme. You can do great things with a handful of people in one indoor set (half the dramas in history are along these lines). Why not go for something like that, BBC?
On top of that, they couldn't even get small (cheap) details right, as other reviewers have pointed out. Was decent military advice too expensive as well?
If you've got a small budget, make a small programme. You can do great things with a handful of people in one indoor set (half the dramas in history are along these lines). Why not go for something like that, BBC?
No Military advisor?
donwhitehead-620501 September 2021
What a disappointment. I would have thought that at the very least you would consult someone who had been there done that. Obviously not. So many discrepancies it is not true.
1 NS men were not issued with a personal weapon but drew them from the armoury as required
2 They would not be allowed to wear berets "lopsided" and the ribbons would be tucked in.
3 One man to cook a regimental dinner? No cook sergeant?
4 wrong type of helmet for the time. They were still using WW2 helmets
5 wrong weather for the last intake. It was in depth of winter
6 for the first 4 weeks recruits were not allowed out of barracks and spent all their time drilling and cleaning. NAAFI breaks were at the discretion of the NCO
7 Apart from nightwear they wore denims and boots all day
8 battledress was worn for parades
9 first day was spent drawing kit and haircuts and being instructed on "rules"
Next time get someone who knows from personal experience what went on.
1 NS men were not issued with a personal weapon but drew them from the armoury as required
2 They would not be allowed to wear berets "lopsided" and the ribbons would be tucked in.
3 One man to cook a regimental dinner? No cook sergeant?
4 wrong type of helmet for the time. They were still using WW2 helmets
5 wrong weather for the last intake. It was in depth of winter
6 for the first 4 weeks recruits were not allowed out of barracks and spent all their time drilling and cleaning. NAAFI breaks were at the discretion of the NCO
7 Apart from nightwear they wore denims and boots all day
8 battledress was worn for parades
9 first day was spent drawing kit and haircuts and being instructed on "rules"
Next time get someone who knows from personal experience what went on.
Not great.
anniebrodie3 September 2021
Too many glaring errors: the birth control pill wasn't in use in the UK till 1961. The Animals' hit 'We Gotta Get out of this Place wasn't out till 1965. And if any man turned up with shaven chest and armpits, he'd have been branded a poof and beasted into the middle of next week. Easy stuff to research so no excuses. The lack of violence was striking. Getting punched round the head for getting things wrong was still happening when my son joined up in 1992.
Wrong year for the music
barwood-371423 September 2021
I see there were so many comments on how many detail errors have been made in this series, but I'd also like to know why the music chosen to accompany the episodes had absolutely nothing to do with the year that this series was supposed to represent, they were released years later.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
