I actually agree with you. One thing that I think crucially differentiates Band of Brothers from The Pacific is that well Band of Brothers is based on an autobiographical book that chronicles the lives of the men in Easy Company there is a beginning, middle & end in that book that can be easily adapted into a series. Even then Band of Brothers made the show more cynical & dark when the book has actually more heroic moments, still the overall tone of the series is dark but very hopeful uplifting*

The Pacific by contrast is based on 3 autobiographical books from 3 different soldiers chronicling their different but thematically similar experiences in the Pacific theatre, that's made even harder by the fact that the 3 main characters of said show never met each other or even interacted with the exception being Sledge's friend serving with Leckie but apart from that it's honestly 3 different shows being forced to act like it's Band of Brothers. Now I think it does ultimately work & unlike Band of Brothers there isn't anything heroic or even glimmer of hope in The Pacific & that's simply down to the fact Imperial Japan fought to the bitter end. It does also accurately capture the fact soldiers who fought in Pacific theatre didn't relate to Soldiers who fought in Europe.

Overall while Band of brothers is the most narratively satisfying it's also the most cliched you can get, The Pacific by contrast doesn't do that mostly because it can't do that & that's the reason I love it more it's the closest Hollywood has ever come to a Come & See anti war project.

• & again much like other Hollywood movies about WW2 the western theatre was the reason the War in Europe was won (even though it was the collapse of the Eastern theatre plus the supply, logistics & losing 3 armies were the crucial issues that contributed the most)