The First World War from Above

[(nzef)]

I asked my wife to watch it with me last night and to comment at the end.

Her comments:

- Very good if you were doing leaving cert history

- Very good for footage of battlefields you don't usually see

- The scene with the lady at the end - shock & awe T.V

and...the title said it was about the war from above, not the war 'above'.

Cheers

[centurion]

Was Fergal Keane right when he stated that more airmen were killed in accidents than in combat ?

Phil (PJA)

Just like the rest of the documentary I wouldn't accept anything without verification (worse than Wiki). Certainly training accidents were high and the first pressure for parachutes was to save lives from training accidents (until it was recognised that most training accidents occurred at altitudes too low for parachutes - mainly in take off and landing). I was under the impression that most accidents (training and operational) were during landing not take off as was intimated. The account of the dangers of take off would seem to refer to problems with the RE 8, especially if there was an engine failure. An official investigation by skilled pilots concluded that this was down to inadequate training techniques. It certainly didn't apply to the Bristol Fighter and I suspect this claim was down to a combination of ignorance and the presenter doing a "ooh aren't I brave flying in this" bit of self puffing.

The statement that a pilots life expectancy at the front was lower than an infantrymans was another meaningless statement probably designed to raise some oohs and ahs. The life expectancy of a pilot would depend upon, what period of the war we are talking about, the experience of the pilot, which part of the front and the type of mission flown. Similarly that of the infantry man would go up and down. The statement might just about hold some value if we were talking about a BE2 crew during Bloody April 1917.

The fatuous stuff about how difficult it was to hold a camera steady over the side of the aircraft showed woeful ignorance, apart from some very early instances cameras were fastened to the side of the aircraft when taking photos.

Another statement that showed a lack of knowledge was that about the "terrible conditions" in which the photos had to be processed. Most such work would be done in a well appointed photographic hut at the airfield with a courier waiting to whisk the photos off to whichever HQ etc needed them. About the only time plates had to be washed in a ditch (if ever) would have been during the March retreat.

The more one analysed the documentary the more that, in the immortal words of Arthur Dent, it looks like a steaming pile of dingo's kidneys

[mjh]

Disappointed. The show did not live up to its billing. The film shot from the airship has been shown (and indeed, a lot more of it shown) quite recently and the rest was of a style and quality that you could see a hundred times a week on the History Channel. Sure it was not aimed at afficionados, but even so I think it was a missed opportunity.

Hi Chris could you please tell me where else this aerial footage has been shown ? was it on another programme ? I would love to see the full 78 minutes relesed on dvd, as I'm sure a lot of fellow forum members

would as well.

[Bart150]

Since we are all enjoying this thread so much, I'd like to keep it going by returning to the question I asked in post 62.

Certainly the trench visited in the film was not representative of most trenches on the Western Front. Leaving aside the unsurprising point that it was more tidy, it was much more shallow than most of the actual trenches.

It was IMO a grave fault that the programme gave viewers the impression that this was a typical Western-Front trench.

But, taking this opportunity to develop my own knowledge, I'd like to ask: Was that trench representative of most trenches in the Ypres sector - since in that sector the ground was so soggy that trenches of the usual depth were not feasible?

[centurion]

Since we are all enjoying this thread so much, I'd like to keep it going by returning to the question I asked in post 62.

Certainly the trench visited in the film was not representative of most trenches on the Western Front. Leaving aside the unsurprising point that it was more tidy, it was much more shallow than most of the actual trenches.

It was IMO a grave fault that the programme gave viewers the impression that this was a typical Western-Front trench.

But, taking this opportunity to develop my own knowledge, I'd like to ask: Was that trench representative of most trenches in the Ypres sector - since in that sector the ground was so soggy that trenches of the usual depth were not feasible?

They had a parapet built from the excavated soil and bolstered with sand bags. The trenches shown had no parapet. In really wet soil they would have a breastwork

Breastwork 2

[Aurel Sercu]

Hi Chris could you please tell me where else this aerial footage has been shown ?

I cannot answer on behalf of Chris of course, but I am 99% sure that the Ypres bit was shown in a temporary exhibition in the In Flanders Fields Museum in Ypres, 2 or more years ago.

And on the Dutch WW1 Forum I have just read that parts were used in a French documentary in the 1980s.

Aurel

[Bart150]

Thanks Centurion. That makes sense.

So in the Ypres sector the wall of a trench (including parapet sandbags etc) would be just high enough to protect a standing man.

But in the classic Western Front trench built in good rich soil the trench wall would be nearly double the height of a standing man.

That is just the kind of insight that might be conveyed very well in a tv programme.

And of course, having got that clear, one feels even more contempt for a programme that, without any kind of disclaimer, has the presenter striding along a trench whose wall is not much higher than his waist.

[mjh]

I cannot answer on behalf of Chris of course, but I am 99% sure that the Ypres bit was shown in a temporary exhibition in the In Flanders Fields Museum in Ypres, 2 or more years ago.

And on the Dutch WW1 Forum I have just read that parts were used in a French documentary in the 1980s.

Aurel

thanks for the reply aurel

[dfaulder]

If they had really wanted to show what trenches were like they could always have reproduced the illustration above, and then over-laid a "walking Fergal" on the duckboard (with CGI bullets whizzing over the parapet just clearing his stooped head), and then phased out the illustration to show Fergal in a reconstructed trench with a long tracking shot zooming out to show him in a trench system with communication trenches etc. (could even use a helicopter for this shot).

Bingo. CGI, Fergal, tracking shot, helicopters and yet it still illustrates a valid point!

David

[Chris_Baker]

Offhand I can't remember the name of the programme where the footage was shown but it was in the last year. I'll ask the wife, fount of all knowledge.

[bts1970]

Hi

just to add my comments, i am by no way an "expert" but after many years of interest in the Great War, & 3 years researching for a local interest publication i was left very disapointed in a missed opportunity.

If there is one thing that winds me up its the lack of knowledge shown by the masses inregards to 4 years that shaped our lives today. Here was another excellent opportunity to clearly & truthfully show the Western front on prime time TV when interest in this subject is at its height (Armistace week).

But again the programme makers got it wrong........ but then again did they?. On here we are experts in many aspects of the War whilst others have a more general interest in local history & its connections. Do we really think that the BBC would care if us anoraks were offended, i doubt it ........but they should be. This week i have twice been stopped by villagers who wanted to talk about the programme, on both occasions they ended up looking at me in disapointment when i pointed out the problems with that section of the programme they referred to.

There is to much general TV covering aspects of the War without delving deeper, more time please on good research & clear fact mr BBC. As a footnote i am sure (please tell me i was wrong) that i saw Russian troops moving through the suburbs of Berlin as part of the "reconstruction", again Mr BBC please don`t take us all for mugs.

Best regards

Bob

[JimSmithson]

OOn a more serious note, This is a splendid series. Presented by an historian whose enthusiasm and knowledge transmits to the audience, using real people as well as other historians; each episode has been a delight. The Beeb can do it when it tries - trouble is, it doesn't try often enough.

I agree Steven. A great deal down to Michael Wood though - I have watched every single thing he has done and am in awe of the man. He is by far the best historian/presenter there has ever been on television. I've no idea how much influence he has on the actual production of a programme but it cannot be a coincidence that everything he does is first class. I first saw him on Great Railway journeys, the week after watching Michael Palin! I remember the next year being blown away by his 'In Search of the Dark Ages'. How he made a relatively difficult period so interesting was just fantastic. Is it really nearly 30 years ago - Oh my God!

Wish he was a Great War fan!

Jim

[roel22]

I cannot answer on behalf of Chris of course, but I am 99% sure that the Ypres bit was shown in a temporary exhibition in the In Flanders Fields Museum in Ypres, 2 or more years ago.

And on the Dutch WW1 Forum I have just read that parts were used in a French documentary in the 1980s.

Ypres footage was also used in the Dutch documentary In Europa (English subtitles) by Geert Mak.

Aerials start at 07:07.

Roel

[truthergw]

Thanks Centurion. That makes sense.

So in the Ypres sector the wall of a trench (including parapet sandbags etc) would be just high enough to protect a standing man.

But in the classic Western Front trench built in good rich soil the trench wall would be nearly double the height of a standing man.

That is just the kind of insight that might be conveyed very well in a tv programme.

And of course, having got that clear, one feels even more contempt for a programme that, without any kind of disclaimer, has the presenter striding along a trench whose wall is not much higher than his waist.

Centurian's diagrams say it all really but the conditions which required barricades instead of or as well as trenches, stretched well south, past Armentieres and Neuve Chapelle to Festubert. Building and re-building barricades was a never ending task. Later on, pumps improved and trenches could be dug in all but the wettest regions.

[bierlijn]

I'm afraid In Europa doesn't have enough CGI or shots of the presenter looking troubled to interest us here.

[centurion]

The night before I watched M Palin's documentary on the Day the War Ended. which I'd missed first time round. This showed how it should be done. Palin (Normaly an order of magnitude more entertaining in his own right than Keane) never got in the way of the story being told. Instead of deliberately manipulated grief we had the account of Wilfred Owen's death which was affecting in its own right. It didn't pander to potential American (export) audiences but showed some of the American commanders (especially Pershing) for what they were (actually I thought he was a little too soft on Pershing). There were some areas that I might have queried but nothing essential. It can be done right and this proved it.

[Aurel Sercu]

Roel,

Yes ! That's right ! Now I remember that I saw the aerial footage in In Europa too ! And some of it were not shown in "The First World War From Above". Well, not really surprising (since the original footage is approx. 80 minutes), but it makes it all the more tantalizing to see the rest, in the first place of Ypres (and hopefully Boezinge).

Aurel

[Terry_Reeves]

In fact the diagram shown, shows the training manual "perfect approach" to trench construction. In reality it was somewhat different and trench construction was a progression throughout the war, and was constrained somewhat by the ground conditions, principally the water table. Some trenches had to be dug only to around waist height because of the latter, protection from thereon up being provided by sandbag construction. With regard to trench pumps, they were quite often ineffectual, particularly in periods of bad weather, added to which was the problem of the disposal of the drained water, which careful thought was needed, but was sometimes practically impossible.

I agree that the programme did not live up to expectations, but you need to be careful about the particular.

TR

[Seadog]

OMG Terry! are you hinting the the programme actually got something right?, well that will ruin this thread immediately.

Enjoy

Norman

[Steven Broomfield]

Michael Wood though - I ... am in awe of the man.

Jim

Mrs Broomfield is a big fan, too - she was reminiscing about his leather WW2 flying jacket. I pointed out that he is 30 years' older than then. She pointed out that I am, too.

But what a difference having a proper historian presenting (and being involved in the production). Fergal Keen (I keep wanting to say Fergal Sharkey ... The Undertones of War, maybe) is a journalist, and it showed.

[centurion]

In fact the diagram shown, shows the training manual "perfect approach" to trench construction. In reality it was somewhat different and trench construction was a progression throughout the war, and was constrained somewhat by the ground conditions, principally the water table. Some trenches had to be dug only to around waist height because of the latter, protection from thereon up being provided by sandbag construction. With regard to trench pumps, they were quite often ineffectual, particularly in periods of bad weather, added to which was the problem of the disposal of the drained water, which careful thought was needed, but was sometimes practically impossible.

I agree that the programme did not live up to expectations, but you need to be careful about the particular.

TR

But the point is there was something to provide cover. I suspect from the construction details the trenches in the documentary may originally have been like this

but the parapet was later removed after the war

[Seadog]

Hi Steven. unfortunately I cannot stand Michael Wood and just listening to him is complete turn off to me. Mind you anything featuring Prof Richard Holmes has got my vote everytime!

Regards

Norman

[Gunner Bailey]

I've enjoyed reading this thread and agree with many of the points made. Is it possible for a MOD to allow the BBC producer to view it and respond?

It's clear the BBC should use our precious licence money with a bit more care.

John

[bierlijn]

I left an entry on the producer's programme blog referred to earlier in the thread, with a link to this thread. Couldn't work out how to hyperlink it though.

*correction* seems hyperlinked fine.

[Bart150]

unfortunately I cannot stand Michael Wood and just listening to him is complete turn off to me.

Me too. That gooey delivery exactly as if he's teaching an infant-school class makes him literally intolerable as far as I'm concerned. I mean literally. Whenever one of his trailers (of which there are far too many) comes up next to some other programme I'm watching I have to get to the remote control to kill it before he opens his mouth.