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

I'm not so sure about the whole "cameras are too still to be real footage".

Looked up the 1927 film "Wings, got the Wiki page on it. That says the finale of the film was the "Battle of St Mihiel".

So i typed that into Youtube and found this. Entitled "First Military Operation by the US Army - World War 1 - Battle of St Mihiel", the footage was taken by the Signals Corps of the US Army.

Not the exact footage, but you can see the footage later in that film on the front line. Looks pretty steady to me and very similar to how it would have been.

I'm no expert military historian though so i'm not sure.



CX.

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.

I think modern soldiers would bother to find cover, and actually aim their rifles and engage the enemy at a marksman's distance.

EDIT: soldiers then did too, this is cinema.

mbkennel

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.

I think modern soldiers would bother to find cover, and actually aim their rifles and engage the enemy at a marksman's distance.

EDIT: soldiers then did too, this is cinema.

edit on 10-11-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

I'm not saying this isn't cinema, but did you ever hear of the civil war? Their fighting tactics were unrealistically stupid back then. Both sides stood in a line and shot at each other. Then they wondered why they got shot. -_-

reply to post by kx12x


I don't think most metro guys end up joining the military. I think it's safe to say that the militaries of the world are still made up of a lot of tough SOBs. They fight smarter now, not just walls of men running at each other, but they still fight hard. Fighting a few soldiers with fully automatic weapons, grenades and RPGs is like a highly concentrated version of 100 men with muskets and artillery.

reply to post by mlifeoutthere


I just skipped around and haven't read all the replies (one thing OP, they didn't carry muskets in WW2, they were breech loading rifles).
This is interesting but staged, for one thing the cameras were hand cranked so the operator couldn't have been shot and left it running!
Also, if you do a search of 'real' footage from WW1 you will see when shells hit the camera shakes, one reason is being hand cranked it's hard not to flinch!
The tanks are too new (model-wise).
Someone had the nerve to say these were "real men" and called our new military people 'girly men' apparently this idiot has not had the 'pleasure' to witness combat up close and personal! How dare you insult the brave, modern military men and women that keeps people like you free!
Wars are fought differently in WW1 to now because of the advancement in weapons, not because they were fought by "real men!"
This is from a movie, it is staged.
This kinda reminds me of the Civil War 'movie' of Confederate soldiers that was 'filmed' with an experimental 'movie camera' that was on you-tube. turns out it was modern day re-enactors and they made the film look old.

Yes, I stand corrected. It is just a movie called Wings, 1927, and got the Oscar in 1929.

I didn't reply here again, till now, as it was driving me nuts till I found the movie online.

Wings - 1927

(see around 1:54:00)

I retract my statements prior, and stand corrected.

I now return you to this thread.

edit to add, the images and land and artifacts match up to the location and timestamp that I gave above.

But it seems the OP's video is a camera run, as nowhere in the movie Wings, is there that long of a clip. Maybe it was a unused reel, from another camera, but the movie link I posted clearly shows it was this film, at least in parts.

smirkley


But it seems the OP's video is a camera run, as nowhere in the movie Wings, is there that long of a clip. Maybe it was a unused reel, from another camera, but the movie link I posted clearly shows it was this film, at least in parts.

I agree. See also videos from the making of the movie and input from Director William Wellman. The battle scene was carefully rehearsed with controlled explosions. The Director was waiting for sun for the final shoot.

See the description and disclaimer on the original OP video.

Some of this footage was officially released by the United States government, some of the footage was obtained via the Freedom of Information Act.

The reason why it would have been in government archives is because the US Army provided thousands of soldiers for the filming of the movie. Tanks and aircraft were also provided for the filming.

See from 05:25 on following video. Director William Wellman describes the shooting of the battle scene for Wings. There was an accident with the controlled explosions. Wellman pushed the wrong button and two soldiers were injured. The US Army provided thousands of soldiers and and at least one was killed during the filming. Cadet Charles Wisley was given a full military burial with honours. Wellman continues in part 4 with some more stills of the area used for filming.

mlifeoutthere

not to discredit you but there is no definate comparison watching that video, the shot in question is very brief and could be anywhere, i watched the clip

so once again theres no definate way of knowing this is staged, just like vice versa

I understand your point of view, but the background hills do match. It is the crop or edit of the footage that is confusing. See following addressed to the forum.

The footage from the Wing (1927) movie and the OP 'World War 1 footage' is the same sequence. The only difference is that it is either a slightly different camera angle or it is edited/cropped. Was there a second camera as back up? The Movie footage is a tighter shot.

It is a fast moving scene but one thing that caught my attention was a soldier who falls in the foreground. In the movie with the cropped frame his head and torso are visible falling into shot. He then rolls over on his back and raises his arm. If you watch the footage presented by the OP the same soldier is visible during his run and fall. If you freeze the videos you can then match up the trees and the distinctive soldier in the background.

On the left is a screen capture from the Wings (1927). On the right is a screen capture from OP video.

Arrow 3 - is falling soldier
Arrow 1 - Same trees. Note the distinctive shape of the one on the extreme left.
Arrow 2 - Distinctive soldier in background.



The scene depicts when 'Fresh American waves renew the attack....' One of the tanks is also visible in the movie just coming into frame on the right.

Watch from 1:53:56 'Fresh American waves renew the attack....'

Watch out at 1:54:04 for the soldier falling into frame on the foreground extreme right.

Wings (1927) Movie Link

See following link and note the soldier falling?

OP video from 0:52 - Falling Soldier

Full OP video again - Watch from 0:52

Looks pretty real to me, back then if the officer in charge blew the whistle to go over the trenches and you froze, or refused. You were shot on site, as a traitor. Could you imagine that today. Another time and people back then.

CX
I'm not so sure about the whole "cameras are too still to be real footage".

Looked up the 1927 film "Wings, got the Wiki page on it. That says the finale of the film was the "Battle of St Mihiel".

So i typed that into Youtube and found this. Entitled "First Military Operation by the US Army - World War 1 - Battle of St Mihiel", the footage was taken by the Signals Corps of the US Army.

Not the exact footage, but you can see the footage later in that film on the front line. Looks pretty steady to me and very similar to how it would have been.

I'm no expert military historian though so i'm not sure.

CX.

Agreed, and despite the people whove mentioned `wings` i see nowhere in the movie or the extra scenes which resemble what we see in the video

And also my point i made earlier in this thread, if it was a movie or staged propaganda.. why would the officer be shown as one of the first people to run (look around 8 seconds guy without musket)
Movies, even early silent ones would never show that, and all the more so, propoganda would never show the officers running away first at the sight of an enemy.

It should not be glorified in such a manner

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)

Oh yeah, totally. Clearly a superior species, during a superior time. Those were the good ole days, weren't they?

I know... why don't we do away with sissy stuff like modern medicine, and safe environments, and all these pansy feelings and just go back to being less-educated, uptight, emotionally repressed wrecks just because someone has some false notion that these were "real men," compared to today.

Why don't we re-visit the dark ages, while we're at it?



Yes, society was different back then. Yes, people were a bit different back then. Maybe they were a little tougher. But that was not entirely a good thing. And stop trying to twist history while you romanticize it. Plenty of people back then got "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder" from combat. They just had different names for it. "Shell shock" I think is one of the older ones.

In the Civil War they called it "Soldier's Heart."



So romanticize, and entertain your fantasies if it makes you happy. But don't think for a second that war was not completely traumatic to these people, as it would be to anyone.

JohnnySasaki

mbkennel
I think modern soldiers would bother to find cover, and actually aim their rifles and engage the enemy at a marksman's distance.

I'm not saying this isn't cinema, but did you ever hear of the civil war? Their fighting tactics were unrealistically stupid back then. Both sides stood in a line and shot at each other. Then they wondered why they got shot. -_-

A lot of World War I was fought by soldiers going "over the top," or crawling out of their trenches and running toward the enemy with sharp knives. That's the way armies did it for thousands of years, after all. It wasn't until they killed millions in WWI that the armies determined that this old fighting style wasn't applicable in an age where you had huge bombs and tanks and machine guns that cut everything to ribbons.

mlifeoutthere

CX
I'm not so sure about the whole "cameras are too still to be real footage".

Looked up the 1927 film "Wings, got the Wiki page on it. That says the finale of the film was the "Battle of St Mihiel".

So i typed that into Youtube and found this. Entitled "First Military Operation by the US Army - World War 1 - Battle of St Mihiel", the footage was taken by the Signals Corps of the US Army.

Not the exact footage, but you can see the footage later in that film on the front line. Looks pretty steady to me and very similar to how it would have been.

I'm no expert military historian though so i'm not sure.

CX.

Agreed, and despite the people whove mentioned `wings` i see nowhere in the movie or the extra scenes which resemble what we see in the video

And also my point i made earlier in this thread, if it was a movie or staged propaganda.. why would the officer be shown as one of the first people to run (look around 8 seconds guy without musket)
Movies, even early silent ones would never show that, and all the more so, propoganda would never show the officers running away first at the sight of an enemy.

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

Let it go mate, its not propagander, its a movie.

It doesnt detract that it may be a similar scene to the horrors those men faced, but it is from a movie.

Thanks for the post though, followed it to some links showing real footage which is a very important part of our history and very poignant on 11/11 -

They went with songs to the battle, they were young.
Straight of limb, true of eyes, steady and aglow.
They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted,
They fell with their faces to the foe.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning,
We will remember them.

They mingle not with their laughing comrades again;
They sit no more at familiar tables of home;
They have no lot in our labour of the day-time;
They sleep beyond England's foam

Lest We Forget

If we forget, it will happen again.

tommyjo
It is the crop or edit of the footage that is confusing. See following addressed to the forum.

The footage from the Wing (1927) movie and the OP 'World War 1 footage' is the same sequence. The only difference is that it is either a slightly different camera angle or it is edited/cropped. Was there a second camera as back up? The Movie footage is a tighter shot.

Also the exposure levels are different.

I am guessing that at the viewpoint of the camera's, were likely two or more cameras on the same spot. Slightly different lenses, different exposure,..... but one of the reels were unused and now appear in the mysterious ww1 YT vid.

But as far as the location and staged event, no doubts they are one in the same moment.

reply to post by smirkley


I agree. Thanks for the feedback on the Movie/OP video footage match up. I wonder if this was a War Department camera set up to record the involvement of their personnel in the making of the movie? Or the reel from a back-up camera presented to the War Department? Either way it appears to have ended up in the government archives and decades later incorrectly labelled and released as WW1 actual footage. From the video description.

Some of this footage was officially released by the United States government, some of the footage was obtained via the Freedom of Information Act.

Awsome!

We can argue the whole day about "This wouldnt have happened" and "They wouldnt have done this". Apart from the conclusive picture proof which has been given that this is a movie... the one thing that gave it away for me is that we see no recoil on the rifles, despite a lot of shooting. You dont have recoil when pretend-firing and when firing blanks.

Look at modern Lee Enfield firing videos, and you will see noticeable recoil even from people in stable, concentrated firing positions. I cant make out one recoil like movement in the whole video, and they are shooting from all kinds of positions and grips on their weapons. This is something that is very hard to fake, and has only been introduced to Hollywood on a broader scale during the 1990s "movie gunfight realism" shift.

Nevertheless, apart from the obvious technical inaccuracies of the footage, it is still an admirable depiction of the SPIRIT of a world war I battle. Remember that stage and film plays are there to trigger an emotional reaction and not only a purely visual presentation of events. Which is why a lot of the know-it-all critics of war films ("Their unit badge is wrong!!!") often miss the actual point of such scenes.

iwilliam
...
Yes, society was different back then. Yes, people were a bit different back then. Maybe they were a little tougher. But that was not entirely a good thing. And stop trying to twist history while you romanticize it. Plenty of people back then got "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder" from combat. They just had different names for it. "Shell shock" I think is one of the older ones.
....

While I agree with your denunciation of this ridiculous idea that men back then were more manly, proper shell shock itself is a very specific ailment that can be separated from the symptoms we now understand as PTSD (which of course occured in WW1 as well).

Shell shock was only attributed to a lot of soldiers suffering from combat stress disorders because it gave the idea that their problems had a physical cause, which even today is considered more "respectable" than saying they are psychologically/emotionally hurt.

JohnnySasaki
...
I'm not saying this isn't cinema, but did you ever hear of the civil war? Their fighting tactics were unrealistically stupid back then. Both sides stood in a line and shot at each other. Then they wondered why they got shot. -_-

Battles are won by breaking the enemy, not killing him. With imprecise muskets, you do that by keeping unit cohesion, precision volleys and maneuvering in formation. Nothing particularly stupid about that.

The Civil war in particular shows very interesting shifts from the traditional battle lines to early trench warfare-style because of the gradual proliferation of long range precision rifles.

Hindsight is always 20/20, but dont forget that even the most brilliant commanders did not fully understand the implications of precision fire combined with atrocious communications well into the 1st World War, decades after rifling and other gunsmirhing advances increased effective fire range tenfold (both for firearms and field artillery).

Lonestar24
Battles are won by breaking the enemy, not killing him. With imprecise muskets, you do that by keeping unit cohesion, precision volleys and maneuvering in formation. Nothing particularly stupid about that.

The Civil war in particular shows very interesting shifts from the traditional battle lines to early trench warfare-style because of the gradual proliferation of long range precision rifles.

Hindsight is always 20/20, but dont forget that even the most brilliant commanders did not fully understand the implications of precision fire combined with atrocious communications well into the 1st World War, decades after rifling and other gunsmirhing advances increased effective fire range tenfold (both for firearms and field artillery).

edit on 13/11/2013 by Lonestar24 because: (no reason given)

I'm not saying standing in a line and shooting was a stupid idea back then (on it's own), I'm saying standing in a line while the other side shoots at you is a bad idea, and if you can't get out of the way fast enough, then yes, the standing in a line and shooting is also fairly stupid. I realize it's most likely not exactly like they portray it in movies and reenactments though.

However, for the sake of argument, (if it was at least similar) I don't care if you're shooting bow and arrows, standing out in the open and allowing your enemy a clear shot is about as stupid as it gets. You can very easily (assuming there is cover to be had) fire from cover just as effectively. In fact, more effectively considering less of your men are going to get shot.

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?

Scratch that. The height of the camera is wrong. One thing ive just noticed is not a lot is happening in the distance, just a lot of two-ing and fro-ing with not a lot of actual combat that i can see. All the drama happens in the foreground. The reaction to the artillary rounds of the troops around them seems off as well. as if it was just thunderflashes or pyrotecnics. Looking more like newsreel mock-up the more i look at it.

Doesnt detract from the carnage these people on both sides endured. 1000s dead to gain a few yard of mud in a french field!

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