These kinds of stories are neat but one should remember it's a survivorship bias. The story is also how 250 guys managed to lose to 1 guy (haven't watched it yet but I assume based on the title that's how it plays out).
No, it is not survivorship bias. The guy mowed down hundreds of Germans with his 50 cal and calls for artillery fire.
Because he was lucky that a random artillery shell didn't blow him up (also considering all previous engagements he was in) or a particular way a German aimed his rifle would have produced a hit. War is random like hell on the individual level but somebody has to go out there and do the job. Then again, life on the whole is a lot more random than we usually like to attribute it since we prefer the illusion of control.
So because the guy was very brave, and jumped onto a burning tank full of explosives, and was giving orders and all that shit, we should dismiss his actions as nothing special, when all his peons were hiding in the muck? Your standards for bravery are high. According to your theory, nobody in WW II was brave and deserved a medal, because they were all lucky, and not brave or had guts to do what had to be done.
I don't think he says that. Bravery exists but the vast majority of brave men did not survive to tell the story. Sadly it's both in the interest of the powers be AND our own psychology which emphasises the extraordinary stories of the heroes that survived and swipe under the rug the vast cohorts of those who didn't.
A lot of stories are never told. But, 2/3 of all the Medal of Honor medals awarded are given posthumously. They don't come easy.