'Our World War' - BBC3 series

[martin_sole]

I have now viewed all three recorded programs and they were absolutely awful The tank one being the worst. I great disservice has been done to those who actually took part in theses actions.

If this is what we have to expect from TV during the next four years, then......I cannot find the words! they were blinking dreadful.

Bob, putting aside the fact that you didn't like the programme and that there was an amount of artistic license in play, how is it doing the real veterans a disservice?

[kevmc]

I have now viewed all three recorded programs and they were absolutely awful The tank one being the worst. I great disservice has been done to those who actually took part in theses actions.

If this is what we have to expect from TV during the next four years, then......I cannot find the words! they were blinking dreadful.

Bob

Obviously you are entitled to your own opinion, but you seem out of step with most posters on this subject. Clearly the programmes were appreciated in the main so the makers can feel satisfied, despite the various gripes.

Kevin

[Steven Broomfield]

Amiens to an end?

Not knowing much about tanks, can anyone explain why all the crew vomited so often?

Is it motion sickness or did the engine vent exhaust fumes into the interior?

I believe the latter.

[David Ridgus]

I great disservice has been done to those who actually took part in theses actions.

Bob

How?

If I was a relative of Chas Rowland or Maurice Dease I think I would be very happy with the way my ancestors had been portrayed and that their service had been brought to life in such gripping dramas

David

[HeatherC]

Bob

How?

If I was a relative of Chas Rowland or Maurice Dease I think I would be very happy with the way my ancestors had been portrayed and that their service had been brought to life in such gripping dramas

David

Agreed amd let's be honest, how many people outside these forums even knew of the existence of Dease and Godley before the first programme? If they were my relatives I'd feel it was a job very well done dspite the odd cringeworthy moment (like the Cpl in episode 1 being called "Sir" which is still the worst error for me!)

[stripeyman]

I am, as has been said, entitled to my opinion. The men in all the programs were depicted as crass, loud mouthed, untrained idiots. As one poster stated acting like a load of blokes on the p***. The Mons episode; utter disregard to the norms of a Regular infantry battalion in a defensive position. Tank episode, a weeks growth on the faces, they find a totally intact farm which is in the FEBA,look that up if you want, A crewman touched the tank commander as he left him to get in the tank, all this hugging business, no salutes and so on and so on. It just does not ring true to me, a chance was there to do this right but I think it was botched on the alter of how we view things in 2014.

[phil andrade]

The woods were distinctly in the grip of winter as they were depicted, although this was supposed to be August 1918.

I thought it conveyed the claustrophobic and toxic atmosphere of the tanks well, and the very primitive mechanism that was so vulnerable to break down.

Did I see things correctly....was there an unfortunate man who had been hanged in a barn ? What was that all about ?

I, too, cringe at some of the inaccuracies ; but I applaud the effort to bring this to life for today's audiences. Rather this, with all its flaws, than nothing. No doubt many will disagree.

Phil (PJA)

[Anneca]

Bob

Obviously you are entitled to your own opinion, but you seem out of step with most posters on this subject. Clearly the programmes were appreciated in the main so the makers can feel satisfied, despite the various gripes.

Kevin

I'm afraid I am in agreement with Bob on this one and have no problems "being out of step with most posters on this subject".

Anne

[mark.topham]

Good to see the great tradition of BBC3 being upheld i.e Garbage!, where did they get the dialogue from it must have been a figment of some poor troubled souls imagination. What an amazing tank to be able to stand fully upright and walk about inside it must have been enormous.

Hi Sea dog

The lad who wrote the scripts was called Joe Barton and was employed because:

"We needed a writer with the guts and confidence to craft that testimony into unfolding drama, to capture how young men think and feel, in all their nervous,

bolshy, red-bloodedness. And we needed a writer unafraid of innovative, documentary-style filming"

BBC3's words not mine.

Does this explain things?

Bom T

[GRANVILLE]

I've only just seen the final programme. Whereas I found the previous two spoit by use of pop music and head cameras and was particularly frustrated by the 'fury helmet', this one was in my opinion in a class of its own. If one assumes the story-line is close to what was written by the veteran in the first place, then one has to assume it's based on the true telling of an experience of war. The apparent roominess within the tank aside, I thought the whole thing was quite riveting to watch.

David

[martin_sole]

I am, as has been said, entitled to my opinion. The men in all the programs were depicted as crass, loud mouthed, untrained idiots. As one poster stated acting like a load of blokes on the p***. The Mons episode; utter disregard to the norms of a Regular infantry battalion in a defensive position. Tank episode, a weeks growth on the faces, they find a totally intact farm which is in the FEBA,look that up if you want, A crewman touched the tank commander as he left him to get in the tank, all this hugging business, no salutes and so on and so on. It just does not ring true to me, a chance was there to do this right but I think it was botched on the alter of how we view things in 2014.

These are mostly relatively minor points of historical accuracy, though. Even though it's a shame that a fair few howlers slipped into the final cut, I still don't see how this reflects poorly on the real men - on the producers, yes, but not on the veterans. Their story has now been told to a far greater audience than before, and whilst I appreciate that the style of telling isn't to your taste, no-one has been mocked, insulted or belittled.

As far as I'm aware, the way we view the Great War in 2014 (at least in terms of social mores) is far closer to the reality of the conflict that in, say, 1934 or 1974

[eltoro1960]

Whilst all 3 episodes had a number of faults, some glaring, episode 3 was in my opinion the best, how accurate was it?

No that far off in some aspects, a man from my village James Malarkie, drove N - Newtongrange in the Battle of Amiens, here's his version of events.

http://www.newbattleatwar.com/tank-called-newtongrange

[kenneth505]

Hi Sea dog

The lad who wrote the scripts was called Joe Barton and was employed because:

"We needed a writer with the guts and confidence to craft that testimony into unfolding drama, to capture how young men think and feel, in all their nervous,

bolshy, red-bloodedness. And we needed a writer unafraid of innovative, documentary-style filming"

BBC3's words not mine.

Does this explain things?

Bom T

Am I reading your posts correctly? You worked on the programme? Congratulations and thanks for participating on the forum.

[Gunboat]

I have been quite outspoken in my criticism of many aspects of this series but I don't think it demeaned any of the veterans in anyway. I am still strongly of the opion that that they not played a bit fast and loose with the facts or tried so hard to attach modern day sensibilities and characteristics to historical figures the drama would have lost none of its impact with the target audience as I suspect ithe innovative filming techniques (which aside from the rear facing rifle cams I thought was really good) was sufficient to keep the younger audience Interested. I certainly didn't feel that there was any insult to the veterans deliberate or otherwise.

[Sidearm]

Whilst all 3 episodes had a number of faults, some glaring, episode 3 was in my opinion the best, how accurate was it?

No that far off in some aspects, a man from my village James Malarkie, drove N - Newtongrange in the Battle of Amiens, here's his version of events.

http://www.newbattleatwar.com/tank-called-newtongrange

Well, the tank was a bit of a mess when you looked at it. It was supposed to be a Mark V, but the externals are of a replica Mark IV (since there is no running Mark V, real or replica, in existence so far as I know). The internals are based on a Mark V, but obviously didn't match the external views. So, for instance at the rear there is externally a vent but internally no sign of it. At the front from the exterior the driver's and commander's vision ports are the same size but internally they're different sizes. Oh, and the real "Niveleur" was a Composite or Hermaphrodite, whereas the tank we saw was a Male.

Whilst I thought the programme the weakest of the series, I don't feel the programmes have done any real harm (except as pointed out above the promulgation of the falsehood that it took four years of war to invent tanks). On the contrary, I feel that they've served as a good introduction to the subject of the Great War for the BBC3 target group. Maybe just a few of them found it sufficiently interesting to decide them to study it in more depth for themselves. Then they'll come to realise the programmes weren't entirely historically accurate and perhaps join this forum as a result. That would be a good thing, wouldn't it?

Charles Rowland's papers are held in The Tank Museum archives, by the way. I read them some years ago.

Gwyn

[stripeyman]

Gywn

The Mk V at The Tank Museum is a runner, been in it twice, once it turned right out of the workshop area and I thought we had turned left, such is the

disorientation in these things.

[kenneth505]

Then imagine they start shooting.

[Sidearm]

Gywn

The Mk V at The Tank Museum is a runner, been in it twice, once it turned right out of the workshop area and I thought we had turned left, such is the

disorientation in these things.

Bob

You've been in it twice? Well you lucky chap (or perhaps not).

I didn't make myself clear. I know that the Mark V at Bovington is technically capable of running, but it is no longer run in order to preserve it, and therefore it is not a running Mark V.

Gwyn

[Gareth Davies]

I really enjoyed the first 2 episodes but I was very disappointed by the 3rd. Not so much because of the inaccuracies, a certain amount of licence is inevitable, but because of the pace. I found it pedestrian (and yes, I do know how fast a Mk V moved). There were some gems within it, for example the comment on what happens if you leave a love letter lying around, but far too few to make up for the plodding.

[roughdiamond]

Finally got round to part 3 and 2 words "Oh dear".

Characterisation straight from the big book of formulaic cliche:

Caring Officer who looks after the men by selflessly risking his life and bucking his superiors - Tick

Aggressive, brooding, bullying, shouty loner who's stone heart crumbles in the end - Double Tick for the cliche of making him Scottish

War weary, Father figure who just wants to get home to his family - Tick

Cocky young newbie who struggles to fit in but becomes one of the lads - Double Tick for the cliche of making him Cockerknee

Veteran with a weighty secret who regularly stares wistfully into the near distance - Tick

Finally la piece de resistance, the moral dilemma that sees them all regain their humanity in a moment of redemption straight from "Saving Private Ryan" - Tick

Like Gerard Kearns' Chas Rowland character, it left me nauseous.

Sam

[roughdiamond]

I should also add the magic Lewis guns that never need reloading, they must come from the same stock Clint used in "Where Eagles Dare".

Then there's the marksmanship, the Brits can shoot multiple men dead at over 30 paces with a Webley pistol, yet the Germans firing rifles can't hit anything but the wall/tank/tree 2" to the side of the blokes heads and clip the Father figure to make him even more tragic.

Finally, If you're going to do a dramatic, lingering close up shot of a pile of spent ammunition cases, invest in a load of spent cases, they can't be that much more than the blank cases used instead which just looked flaming stupid.

Sam

[dannyboy1807]

Very good series really enjoyed all 3 episodes, yes it has mistakes but no programmes,movies etc are perfect.

Let's face it! what would most of you do if it was perfect? what would you have to complain about?

and a question for those who have read Mr Rowland's diaries, these apparent stereotypical events that happened as the above poster is talking about did they actually happen? did Mr Rowland write about these?

[Moonraker]

... Characterisation straight from the big book of formulaic cliche...

I agree with Sam's observations in post 221, not least the contrasting marksmanship. But would anyone care to suggest alternative characterisations? BTW, I found it unconvincing how warm and egalitarian the officer was in greeting the two soldiers on the edge of the field.

Moonraker

[Gareth Davies]

I agree with Sam's observations in post 221, not least the contrasting marksmanship. But would anyone care to suggest alternative characterisations? BTW, I found it unconvincing how warm and egalitarian the officer was in greeting the two soldiers on the edge of the field.

Moonraker

Tankies: we're good people!

[Steven Broomfield]

Never happen in a proper cavalry regiment ...