Incredible WW1 Footage - Holy *** is this real?

MadMax9
reply to post by mlifeoutthere

 

I've never seen it before (1st hint) but if you think logically with low swooping planes (something they did not do) and a fixed camera that everyone ignores..... !!!!!!! the answer is there..... if you think about it!

I was going to say that too, a fixed camera, that couldn't be real.

Stari

AthlonSavage
reply to post by mlifeoutthere

 

im saying that these guys finding were tough and brave, you think the new age feminised men of today could last 5 second in that situation, hand to hand combat with tanks rolling towards them and mortars going off 10 feet away, no way not unless its on x box.

the camera may be set up in a bunker. The film is obviously very old and if it was faked it looks more realistic than modern war movie recreations.

edit on 8-11-2013 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)

The side with the tanks would be the english, the germans/austrians didn't have tanks. So, no I doubt your description of metro men would be fighting with tanks rolling against them.

How ever because I feel the need to slap you down a bit, women, men of all shapes race and religion, gay men, gay women, do fight in the military in the exact situations you described, and they do a damn fine job of it.

You on the other hand, I have a sneaking suspicion you sir are a coward.

mlifeoutthere

MadMax9
reply to post by mlifeoutthere

 

I've never seen it before (1st hint) but if you think logically with low swooping planes (something they did not do) and a fixed camera that everyone ignores..... !!!!!!! the answer is there..... if you think about it!

However, even if history and witnesses from the ww1 era say low swooping planes werent common, it does not mean that there absolutly was never a time in battle where they had low swooping planes during ww1.. can we say for absolute certain that there wasnt a single instance where there werent low swooping planes during a battle? nope, and neither can people who were present at ww1.
That is why without saying 100 per cent it is real (which i personally think it is), you cant say 100 per cent it is fake either.

Pilots in ww1 flew mostly recon missions, they didn't do a lot of fighting like we have seen in WW2 to the current era.

How ever, there were combat pilots. These pilots often flew over the battlefield and tossed grenades out of their planes, and had to fly low enough so their grenades would not explode far enough above the targets with out killing any one.

The primary role of aircraft in ww1 was Recon, with some ground attack roles, later in the war both fighter and bomber aircraft were developed and pursued.


"Aviation



Fixed-wing aircraft were first used militarily by the Italians in Libya on 23 October 1911 during the Italo-Turkish War for reconnaissance, soon followed by the dropping of grenades and aerial photography the next year. By 1914, their military utility was obvious. They were initially used for reconnaissance and ground attack. To shoot down enemy planes, anti-aircraft guns and fighter aircraft were developed. Strategic bombers were created, principally by the Germans and British, though the former used Zeppelins as well.[198] Towards the end of the conflict, aircraft carriers were used for the first time, with HMS Furious launching Sopwith Camels in a raid to destroy the Zeppelin hangars at Tondern in 1918.[199]

Manned observation balloons, floating high above the trenches, were used as stationary reconnaissance platforms, reporting enemy movements and directing artillery. Balloons commonly had a crew of two, equipped with parachutes,[200] so that if there was an enemy air attack the crew could parachute to safety. (At the time, parachutes were too heavy to be used by pilots of aircraft (with their marginal power output), and smaller versions were not developed until the end of the war; they were also opposed by the British leadership, who feared they might promote cowardice.)[201]

Recognised for their value as observation platforms, balloons were important targets for enemy aircraft. To defend them against air attack, they were heavily protected by antiaircraft guns and patrolled by friendly aircraft; to attack them, unusual weapons such as air-to-air rockets were even tried. Thus, the reconnaissance value of blimps and balloons contributed to the development of air-to-air combat between all types of aircraft, and to the trench stalemate, because it was impossible to move large numbers of troops undetected. The Germans conducted air raids on England during 1915 and 1916 with airships, hoping to damage British morale and cause aircraft to be diverted from the front lines, and indeed the resulting panic led to the diversion of several squadrons of fighters from France"

from wikipedia

Someone posted in the Youtube comments of the video, that it is from a 1927 film titled "Wings"

From doing a bit of searching it looks about right, however I can't find the full film, so I can't confirm whether this scene is in it or not, maybe someone else may have better luck.

Also, I apologize if someone has already stated the above fact. To many pages to comb through.

kx12x
reply to post by AthlonSavage

 

WW1 really was fought by real men with enormous amounts of courage, knowing they likely were not coming back yet, still walking towards the enemy line, knowing they were all that stood between the enemy and what they held dear..

You said it best, just look at what we have today..


If WW1 were fought by todays "modern" man, we would all be German.

I highly doubt that.
Even though we have a lot more advanced weaponry our troops are still taught to fight with bravery.

Do not blame the troops for the way or whom with war is fought. Blame those in charge.

We still fight hard battles nowadays, it is the media that twists the footage and decides what is shown.

Intense. Although, I wonder how many of the people hitting the deck were getting shot vs playing dead? I notice most of them appear to die instantly (falling and not moving). I would wager a guess that you don't die instantly from gun shots unless they're to the head.

I guess I could very well be wrong too. I know for damn sure I'd hit the deck if I saw a huge army advancing on my position mere yards away, with little to no comrades by my side. Call me a pus*y all you want.

reply to post by mlifeoutthere


All of those lives for a few meters of mud, in the end.

This is a good film, but is a reenactment.

Guys, if artillery shells are blowing up next to people, entire groups of people would have been ripped to shreds. As in like you would see body parts flying all over the place.

The camera vantage point is too optimal. No way would anyone would be able to plant a well placed camera for a real life skirmish during WW1. There is a reason why most WW1 footage you see does not have this type of vantage point.

Doubt the bi-planes would fly this low to the battlefield.

Either way, the film does show how terrify it would be to fight during WW1. God bless the millions of souls that were wasted in this huge war of attrition.


reply to post by mlifeoutthere

goou111
Is there any way Japan could be in the battle? When you play the video in the ats browser and go to like 600% screen size you can really make out a few more detaials.

After that guy you guys were talking about killed the guy then finished him off on the ground and either played dead or was dead, another group of guys comes right up next to them and are trying to set up a mortar or something.

One of those guys bends over and his helmet falls off, and to me it just looks like a Japanese hairdo.. sry if that's offensive to anyone.

I would say that Japanese hair style is actually BONNET, or a Tam o' Shanter that the Highland Regiment or some Canadian regiments wear.

reply to post by CALGARIAN


'Aint it always the same....
There are no just wars, behind every war there is a economic hidden agenda controlled by bankers.
No square metre of earth is worth a mans life.

SeekingAlpha
This is a good film, but is a reenactment.

Guys, if artillery shells are blowing up next to people, entire groups of people would have been ripped to shreds. As in like you would see body parts flying all over the place.

The camera vantage point is too optimal. No way would anyone would be able to plant a well placed camera for a real life skirmish during WW1. There is a reason why most WW1 footage you see does not have this type of vantage point.

Doubt the bi-planes would fly this low to the battlefield.

Either way, the film does show how terrify it would be to fight during WW1. God bless the millions of souls that were wasted in this huge war of attrition.


reply to post by mlifeoutthere

 

Did I not see tanks driving over dead bodies? That's gotta take some dedication allowing a tank to drive over you for effect.

Or maybe I didn't see that, who knows.

smirkley
The footage is real.

Battle of the Somme, 1916.

A million men died in a few months.

And yes, they filmed alot of it.

Erm...the tanks, French Renault FT tanks.

Only 84 were made in 1917, and didnt enter battle until the 31st of may 1918 near the forest of Retz, in the second battle of the Marne.
So the Somme, it isnt..

Freeborn
reply to post by Aazadan

 

When I was in my last year at school I got myself expelled. At the time my Dad was working permanent night shifts and he used to get out of bed round about lunchtime and he would take me to the local pub for a couple of hours. I would play darts and pool with him and a couple of his mates and generally just have a bit of craic.
It was the start of my 'real' education in life.

One of the old timers who got in the pub at lunchtime was an old guy called Fred who my Dad was quite friendly with.
Over a period of time I got to know Fred quite well and he would tell me stories from years ago.
Fred had joined up to fight in The Great War when he was 14 years old. He was found out but he was desperate to do 'his duty' and serve his country and as a result he ended up being a Captain's batman, (I think the official term was soldier-servant at the time).
Fred told me many a story of his life as a batman and his time at the front - some horrific stories detailing the real horrors of war along with some hilarious tales as well, (most of which I could never repeat here on ATS due to T&C), which I myself have retold on numerous occasions.
Over the next few years Fred used to laugh like hell at me as I seemed to fall from one scrape into another, (usually involving drink, fighting, girls etc - sure you know the story, it's by no means unique) and he'd always say to me "every generation thinks it invented sex and are the first and best at fighting. Son, it's happened that way since the day we crawled out the trees".

I became very friendly with Fred and I was devastated when he eventually passed away - a true Gentleman and very wise.
His stories about the war helped shape my personal viewpoint about war etc - his views were very much in line with those of Harry Patch which I posted earlier in the thread - and also about life in general.
I feel honoured that I got to know him and was able to consider him a friend.

Eventually to my point; I got to hear from someone who not only witnessed WWI but was an active part of the horrific carnage and it had a lasting impact on me. It's something that would benefit every young person just setting out to make their own way in the world. Sadly it seems to be something that is becoming increasingly rare in society today. Old people seem to be as something of an inconvenience and even a burden and very few people have the opportunity to learn and benefit from their experiences - perhaps it's always been that way and that's one of the reasons we have a tendency to repeat mistakes.

I'll raise a glass in remembrance of Fred over the weekend.

Apologies if I've strayed slightly off-topic.

edit on 9/11/13 by Freeborn because: grammar and clarity

My grandfathers brother, Augstine Fitzgerald was so desperate to sign up for world war one, so desperate he lied about his age, not to mention the fact he was a short arse and was also under height, but they passed him anyway.
I was lucky enough to get my hands on his complete service record.
After three months in, he went AWOL, he was punished.
After six months in, he went AWOL again, he was punished, again.
So they sent him to france in 1916.
He was constantly punished for using rude language to superior officers and having a dirty rifle on parade and was given thirty days "field punishment no.1" which consisted of being tied to a wheel or a post for upto two hours a day, they called it cruifixion.

He recieved this for his "action" of the 21st of January 1916 -
"Negilence in discharging his rifle causing a self inflicted wound in to lower leg" he was sent to a field hospital, he wasnt sent home. Lets be honest, he shot himself in the leg such was his desperation to get home.
He was # scared i guess.
He was killed by a shell while on a ammunition collecting duty on the 1st of june 1917.
He joins up and after only 6 months you can see he's desperate to get out. But it was too late.

The cemetery's are full of kids like him.

wlasikiewicz
reply to post by mlifeoutthere

 

That just goes to show what true bravery looks like. They must have had balls of steel in those days to fight like that.

Me thinks you're mixing up bravery and horriffic mindless stupidity.

reply to post by mlifeoutthere


[just an opinion] - My Logic -

Is can't be real//there's is something odd... not whit the Footage Content , [is the Contents Content's] Look at the way the footage looks if you keep repeating to your yourself (look at the camera work,action .. not the actual content)

LOOK at the CAMERA work ,,
.No bumps to camera mount ,,
.No vibration from explosions ,,(even as a +25 Tonnes rolls past)
.Explosions from [supposed] cannon fire,,
(they where shrapnel based, the Area of effect was a lot larger)
.TANKS follow a direct path ,, (none roll over fallen actors.. )
.Bayonet are all to chest area's ,,
(easy to hide -recall OLD films with the fake sword strike between arm and torso)
and so on

AthlonSavage
reply to post by mlifeoutthere

 

im saying that these guys finding were tough and brave, you think the new age feminised men of today could last 5 second in that situation, hand to hand combat with tanks rolling towards them and mortars going off 10 feet away, no way not unless its on x box.

the camera may be set up in a bunker. The film is obviously very old and if it was faked it looks more realistic than modern war movie recreations.

edit on 8-11-2013 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)

Wow, that's just not true. If you think it was testosterone and "manliness" that made those men face tanks and bombs, you have never been in a desperate situation. You are also saying that women can't fight.

Pacifists and "feminized" men fight just like anybody else when desperate times arise. Those are the dudes lifting weights, jogging, and doing yoga in the park in peace time. If I had my choice of who was going to be shooting enemies beside me, I'd pick the average "metro" male over a fat hillbilly any day of the week.

AthlonSavage
reply to post by mlifeoutthere

 

im saying that these guys finding were tough and brave, you think the new age feminised men of today could last 5 second in that situation, hand to hand combat with tanks rolling towards them and mortars going off 10 feet away, no way not unless its on x box.

You underestimate humans ability to adapt to situation, these soldiers were trained, if you just grab a random feminized city-dwelling man sitting on his couch and throw him into the middle of a huge battle.. most people wouldn't know how to react, but put people through training and you'd be surprised.

Before you continue to glorify that war and the supposedly more manly men who could handle it consider how many of them came back with severe mental and physical disabilities from the mental trauma of shell-shock..

reply to post by SeekingAlpha


Well, sort of but not really. It happens so fast there isn't much to see, but yes a lot more people would be dieing/falling when those rounds come down.

The tank isn't quite right either. It looks more like tanks seen in WW2 than those in ww1. WW1 tanks were massive and most lacked a forward or top mounted turret.

WW1 was trench warfare, the tanks often had guns mounted on the sides so they could drive over a trench and fire down the lines..

reply to post by andy1972


It's also looks like the cap highlanders wore. There were various groups with scottish roots, both from England, as well as canada.

mlifeoutthere

Kantzveldt
reply to post by mlifeoutthere

 

It's a Russian re-enactment from the 1920's, the tanks are 'Comrade Lenin's' the first Russian tank, i did the search on light tanks of the period because in WW1 the British tanks were heavy monsters.


Comrade Lenin

kountzero
Its possible the film could be a re-enactment for Pathe news or similar news reel. It was fairly common practice to set up short episodes to compliment the stories told at the cinema. The thing that tells me no though is the fact that the camera does not pan at all, a news camera man maybe hunkered down in a foxhole, cranking the handle [or did they have electric/clockwork then?] with the camera above his head?

Look at the panic and fear when the bayonet troops are face to face, they are almost hesitant to make the first lunge, i definatly would say these are either people who were on the front line, or this is real footage.
These are definatly not actors

edit on 8-11-2013 by mlifeoutthere because: (no reason given)

That stuck out to me as well. Both sides, when it comes to the bayonets, seems like they both just want to turn away, even when they're backed up. I couldn't imagine. Getting shot is one thing, but going at it with bayonets like that..man. That's much more personal than firing at a random crowd. Seeing their faces if you were the "lucky" one that didn't get ran-through. The nightmares... Recreation or not, that's just hard to fathom. Terrifying and brutal.