Keep in mind that many people involved with this film were WW2 vets. That's important, as I think it made a HUGE difference in how the film came out. Audie Murphy was the most decorated American soldier of WW2. Bill Mauldin wasn't a line soldier, but he'd been in the infantry before the war. He knew what the daily life of a grunt was all about. And director John Huston had directed films in WW2, standing at the front lines in Italy to do so. They all knew what war should look like. Had these people not been involved, I think this movie wouldn't have rung true as it did then and does today. Sure, the weapons, most of the uniforms and equipment are horribly wrong (this was in the days when a "trapdoor" Springfield rifle and Indian War era equipment was just fine for a Civil War film), but this film must be viewed on it's acting and photography. They got it across what it was like to be SHOT at, and how it felt to be terrified in battle, better than any film since, "All Quiet of the Western Front." Yes, it's seriously abridged and condensed (quite a feat when you consider how short the book is), but it gets the spirit across just fine. It's not perfect by any measure, but you'll never be able to get such a group together to re-make this film and have ring as trued as this classic.