Few times has a documentary been more eye-opening

"Wheelerguy" (wheelerguy) 07/24/2019 at 09:30 • Filed to: They Shall Not Grow Old, world war 1

3

13

First off: more filmmakers should give coloring non-fiction footage a go. Second: I wonder what the surviving vets thought after the Second World War broke out and the enemy became considerably more “clear-cut”.

Third: what a sobering spectacle to see. Seeing this once before after the film sailed in pirate seas the first time, it was such a gripping experience, to see that most of those soldiers are about my age by the end of it, thrust into a war they thought was a lot less brutal than what they saw at the front. I thought those kids were genuinely a bit more naive at first, but to see them evolve into battle-hardened men for a fight they shouldn’t be fighting has a certain effect on me. The second viewing, which I did just now, carried extra information about production, how the in-battle dialog was added in, among other challenges to make sure every aspect of the film succeeded in showing a war in color. It renewed my appreciation for the accomplishment I was seeing, and put the sacrifice those men were through into perspective. Of course this was vivid to them. Why else would it not be?

To me, it isn’t the maturity, so much the absurdity that stuns me. All that carnage, terror, shock, and for what? It failed to end war—if anything, it only created a bigger boogeyman, one that soon needed the entire world to stop. These blokes staked their lives for this cause, and whoever came back from all that might have needed to fight again. How galling.

Yet all I could think about afterward is conflict—how I wish our government did fully annoy, pester, bugger China into ceding their claims over our patch of ocean, enough that China will retaliate wit h enough force for the world to notice. I want to see NATO, or at least its members, react, to know what it says about nations when a superpower decides to enforce sheer will on another, one who itself is a fighter, or at least it used to be. Would the US or EU leave us hanging, or bolster ASEAN ties? Could the Philippines bank on China and South Korea, who themselves are in their own rows among each other and China? Are we that strategic as a nation? As a region? There are peaceful options, and we have the UN ruling to use, but considering China gives no fucks anyway, what if the Philippines went further than mere roundtable negotiation?

I’m pretty sure similar questions were asked in the road to The Great War. Why fight a war? What’s with the aggression and counter-aggression? Is it worth the cost? All those kids who became men...why put them through this, when the rulers could have just compromised? Yet I understand the need to fight, to resist when someone pushes. You wouldn’t want your land to be taken, your freedom, your life. And your family, friends, neighborhood and city don’ t want to lose something they hold dear to people willing to take it away.

Wheelerguy > Wheelerguy 07/24/2019 at 09:34

2

And now, a weird challenge:

Singer-fy a World War I British tank. Without changing the form and layout, take as much modern technology as you can— wit hout electronic or electric systems— and fit them into a WW1 tank. You can armor them in composite depleted uranium, or give them harder-hitting guns, or even just improve the engine. But detail them to me, either way.

Snuze: Needs another Swede > Wheelerguy 07/24/2019 at 10:13

0

take as much modern technology as you can—without electronic or electric systems

Wat?

I see what you’re getting at - you could take a tank like that and re-engineer it to use all the modern stuff (engine, guns, etc.) b ut not having it use modern electronics makes it worthless on the battlefield. Modern war is as much about command & control and electronic warfare as it is kinetic warfare. At the minimum you need radios and IFF so it doesn’t get bombed by friendly forces.

facw > Wheelerguy 07/24/2019 at 10:15

0

It’s too early in the morning for detail thoughts about the futility of war, but some thoughts about the movie:

It was an interesting decision to make it detached from the actual events of the war. The “generic” feel was a little weird, but I think ultimately worked well.

The decision to narrate with clips from soldier interviews was inspired and really added a lot to the movie.

I liked that they were willing to have conflicting quotes one right after another to show that different soldiers had different experiences (or remembered things differently)

I was surprised that the Imperial War Museum only had 80 hours of footage. I know film technology was new, and plenty may have been lost, but that seems like low output for four years of a film crew.

It didn’t occur to me at all until the making of thing at the end (hope you got that) that this was (of course) all silent footage, so they needed sound effects artists and voice actors, as well as lip readers and research to get the audio. It seems like they did a really good job with that.

Peter Jackson really needs to wear some shoes and/or socks in the office (strong Hobbit affinity?)

farscythe - makin da cawfee! > Wheelerguy 07/24/2019 at 10:15

3

This might just be my pessimism

But I wouldn’t count on NATO to do shit against China...or Russia for that matter

Maybe throw about some sanctions and a strongly worded bad China letter 

ttyymmnn > farscythe - makin da cawfee! 07/24/2019 at 10:30

1

We can thank nukes for that. Nobody wants to start WWIII, with our without nukes. And more pushy countries like Russia and China know that, know that they can move to expand with relative impunity because, two world wars later, nobody wants another. It also doesn’t help that the US president fancies himself a dictator and likes to chum around with other dictators. 

facw > farscythe - makin da cawfee! 07/24/2019 at 10:51

2

Yeah, NATO really only concerns itself with North America and Europe (the action in Afghanistan was only due to an attack in New York). Without that framework, I wouldn’t expect anyone to step in to protect Southeast Asian nations against China if China decided to throw its weight around. You’d get sanctions at best. These countries probably should be looking to form their own mutual defense pact (like a non-imperialist SEATO), but even then they are probably too weak. For a real deterrent you’d want to add at least Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, but that’s complicated by the fact Japan refuses to own up to it’s past atrocities, and Taiwan makes the same territorial and ocean claims that China does. But the US, especially under Trump isn’t going to stick it’s neck out for anyone in a situation where we don’t have an explicit responsibility to do so.

benn454 > facw 07/24/2019 at 11:00

1

 Peter Jackson is secretly Bilbo Baggins. The Hobbit Trilogy was an autobiography. 

Wheelerguy > Snuze: Needs another Swede 07/24/2019 at 11:30

0

No, because I’m supposed to put that tank back in time. I want it to be advanced, but not TOO advanced that the 1917 British tank corps wouldn’t understand anything about the tanks they’re getting now .

Generally my line of thinking I had was: “if they had composite armor, gatling guns and high-caliber fast -loading cannons, I reckon the tanks would be even more terrifying, while more reliable running gear and quality-of-life improvements would help keep the crews comfortable and focused”.

Yeah sure, I can scrunch a Challenger II tank in there and FUCK it would be an even more horrifying, completely unstoppable beast (and if I were to send actual Challenger II tanks back in time in the same nu mbers as WW1 tanks deployed, it would be nuclear) , but that’s too easy, and modern fire control systems would be way too alien when the century is barely legal yet and they’ve only thought of mechanization jus t now. Radios are just about the most “advanced ” electronic tech that I can endow...but boy I would want to take WW1 tanks corps today to let them see what kind of Lovecraftian monster their humble turtles will evolve in to.

Wheelerguy > facw 07/24/2019 at 11:35

0

I was surprised that the Imperial War Museum only had 80 hours of footage. I know film technology was new, and plenty may have been lost, but that seems like low output for four years of a film crew.

Hang on, I thought it was more than that.

facw > Wheelerguy 07/24/2019 at 11:39

0

IIRC, they had 80 hours of WWI era video and something like 240 of interviews.

facw > Wheelerguy 07/24/2019 at 11:43

0

Looks like the number is 100 hours. Still not much.

punkgoose17 > Wheelerguy 07/24/2019 at 12:37

2

Welded instead of riveted construction. Chobou m armor instead of simple steel. Turret on each side is the whole width of the box that sticks out and the machine guns are co-axial. Commander uses a periscope. A machine gun next to the commander. Better radio. Direct i njection m echanical diesel engine .

Snuze: Needs another Swede > Wheelerguy 07/24/2019 at 12:47

1

I reckon the tanks would be even more terrifying, while more reliable running gear and quality-of-lifeimprovements would help keep the crews comfortable and focused

My understanding is that tanks were already absolutely terrifying to enemy soldiers when first encountered. What they quickly realized, though is that that tanks were pretty unreliable, and relatively easy to maneuver around because they were pretty slow and lumbering. The design also had it’s limits and they could get stuck attempting to cross trenches , and were susceptible to mines and things like that.

So I think that would be the first order of business - get a more reliable, more powerful drivetrain in there. A quick bit of Wiki says they used 6 cylinder, 16 liter petrol engines that made 105 HP and could propel the vehicles to 3.7 MPH. That’s a moderately quick walk - for reference, the average human walking speed is around 3.1 MPH, sustained run is around 7 MPH, and a short spring could be 15+ MPH (Usain Bolt can sprint 23 MPH). I’m not saying our hypothetical tank needs to be as fast as an M1 Abrams, but if you could get it up to 10-15 MPH and do it reliably, you really have something because you can move with an infantry charge or even surge ahead as a vangaurd to smash through obstacles to enable the infantry behind , versu s the reality where the infantry had to slow their charges to match pace with the tanks.

More power and speed may also allow a bit better armor. I don’t think bringing modern uranium armor is fair if I can’t have a modern radio, but thicker armor or better metalurgy with what was available then (i.e. steel) shouldn’t be out of the question, especially if we have a more powerful and reliable powertrain. Better armor and more reliability help the tank get in and stay in the fight.

gatling guns and high-caliber fast-loading cannons

Those tanks already had 3 (male) to 5 (female) Vickers and/or Hotchkiss .303 caliber machineguns, which rendered gatling guns obsolete. The .303 is a solid round as evidence that it was still in service in some applications until very recently. The “Male” tanks also had tw o QF 6 pound 57mm cannons that were pretty powerful. These old tanks certainly weren’t undergunned.

Though if you are intent on improving armament, o ne thing we could imagine is a heavier machinegun, such as the M2 Browning .50 Caliber. The M2 is essentially a scaled up M1919 which was in development during the war, and the .50 BMG cartridge is literally a .30-06 round scaled up to .50 diameter. I think that’s a feasible retro tech update that would have worked and possibly given the tanks some added punch. Bigger cannons are also always an option but as I understand it the main limitation was the size of the sponson turrets on the side - the 57mm guns had short breeches and were ideal for the task, but perhaps one could modify that short breech design to create something like a short version of the 76 mm QF 12 pounder .

Radios are just about the most “advanced” electronic tech that I can endow

So I think this starts to bumping up a question of doctrine and tactics. The fascinating thing to me is that, like many other developments in warfare and otherwise, they’d created this grand new machine but really had no idea how to use it. Recall that tanks were originally developed by the Royal Navy as “Land Ships .”

So instead of going for a gigantic land battleship g un carrier with lots of armor and bristling with weapons , what if we change the tactics? We now have a faster, more reliable, and somewhat better armored vehicle that could fulfil a supporting role . For one thing we can perform true combined arms attacks, as I mentioned above, with faster tanks spearheading infantry charges and punching through key points. But what if we could take it to the next level?

One of the things that I recall from the documentary was the rolling fire advance - artillery would start to fire into no-mans land near friendly trenches to clear our barbed wire and debris. T he guns would walk fire across no-mans land towards the enemy and then pound their trenches as the infantry advanced until they had to stop shooting so they didn’t hit their own infantry. And this was all done on a rigid timeline, so if your infantry advanced too fast, or guns fell behind , it was disasterous.

What if our better armored, more efficient tank could carry a wireless telegraph (I don’t think they actually had reliable wireless voice radio). I’d trade in some of my tank armament for a wireless operator seat so he could call in directed fires, as well as coordinate between tanks.

Imagine sitting in your trench , guns pounding away above, waiting for the Britsish charge your Sergeant said intel indicates is coming. Gun fire dies away and you pop your head up but instead of masses of men across the battle field, you see these tanks, rolling across no mans land, machineguns spraying bullets, 6 pounders dropping shells into your trenches, while platoons of infantry move smartly behind them . A s the formation get close, some of the tanks go “hull down” in artillery craters, raising periscopes and watching. As your sector puts up stiff resistance and grinds away at the charge, suddenly artillery fire starts up again, directed right at your trench line, catching men in the open and blasting them apart . Then a pair of tanks approach from the north-we st, moving down the line, pumping cannon shells into machinegun nests you thought were well concealed. As your opposition to the charge withers, the scope drops and the lone tank fires its engine up and rolls over your trench along with one of the pair of cannon tanks , as the other departs south across the line to support the charge in another embattled sector. M achineguns on the two tanks blaze away as infantry pour in behind them to take your trench sector. All across the battle field your lines falter and orders are given to retreat back to secondary positions as artillery strikes and coordinated fires from tanks providing mutual support hammer your defenses. But even as you fall back, these mechanical behemoths advance and lay waste to your army without mercy because they can move faster than you can run, and seem to be able to drop artillery shells in pre-determined positions that you were planning to fall back to.

Thats what happens when you combine arms and coordinate fires instead of rely on a predetermined timeline. It just takes a reliable, faster, little better armored tank, a wireless operator, and a re-think of tactics.