SH Archive World War I: What weapons was it really fought with?

[KD Archive]

The questions about the weapons is a rhetorical one. We know what weapons were used. Some of those were pretty big, some were straight up huge, but still, would they cause all this? How much shelling does it take to cause that much damage?

Below are a few WWI images I googled out.

​

Here are some flags from the Battle of Tannenberg:

• Russians Losses 170,000​
• German Losses 12,000
• There is a plausible reason for the disparity, but really?
• Battle of Tannenberg - Wikipedia
• Top 10 Bloodiest Battles of World War 1

What's the two-fish flag?
​

Note: This OP was recovered from the Sh.org archive.

Note: Archived Sh.org replies to this OP are included in this thread.

 

[Citezenship]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: CitizenShip
Date: 2019-09-29 20:59:21
Reaction Score: 1

Pic 3,

Those trees have been future proofed for use with 5g.

What i am saying is that bombs are indiscriminate, they do not make trees look like they have been carefully trimmed!

Also these trees seem pretty level height wise which would indicate an air burst shell which i maybe wrong but did not come till much later, ww1 should be of the type that explodes on kontact, kinetic is the term i think.

Man ww1 was so f***ed, go and run towards that machine gun or i'm gonna put a bullet in your head for desertion!

 

[feralimal]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Feralimal
Date: 2019-09-29 21:05:35
Reaction Score: 1

How much shelling does it take to cause that much damage?

To me those photos look like what you'd see after a fire. So maybe petrol out something combustible was the cause, not shelling.

I just don't know what to think about a lot of these wars. Is it possible that they are totally different to what we are told, and that they too were just a trick? Could it be possible to pull such a trick while everyone was hiding from bombs underground in tubes (subways) or had their blinds up?

Maybe soldiers were there, busy doing stuff, in a chaotic situation, but maybe it wasn't the war we imagine. Those high drama images of the battles are often drawings after all, we have lots of old war films but maybe they reflect the spin not the reality. There is also the unfeasible photography where the photographer is exempt from being shot at. These leave me with doubts as to their authenticity.

Why would they want to destroy the old? I can think of a couple of reasons. Maybe as a cover up of history as has been suggested elsewhere. It would be easy to destroy difficult buildings with the excuse of war. (The Brits destroyed Dresden which was famed for its architecture.) Another might be that it allows for the reconfiguration of a place, to one that suits better. There are probably other good reasons if you have a high enough vantage point...

 

[codis]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: codis
Date: 2019-09-30 05:48:53
Reaction Score: 1

What's the two-fish flag?

Pretty sure these are not WWI uniforms.

What i am saying is that bombs are indiscriminate, they do not make trees look like they have been carefully trimmed!

Shell splinter and shock waves are far more likely to cut or break twigs and thin branches first. It take quite a hit to fell a stem.
Had been felling a tree in my parent's garden this summer with hand tools - man, that was a back-breaking job. Even after digging two feet deep and cutting all roots, it didn't move.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Incitatus
Date: 2019-09-30 06:59:38
Reaction Score: 1

Both sides had flamethrowers, the British Army had a monster one that I watched a documentary about recently.
Livens Flamethrower

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: EmmanuelZorg
Date: 2019-09-30 13:15:49
Reaction Score: 0

Pretty sure these are not WWI uniforms.

Those look to be uniforms and helmets of the 1935-1942(ish) era.

 

[codis]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: codis
Date: 2019-09-30 13:32:36
Reaction Score: 1

Those look to be uniforms and helmets of the 1935-1942(ish) era.

That's why I noticed it.
To be fair, the given link (www.ancienthistorylists.com/world-war-1/top-10-bloodiest-battle-of-world-war-1/) associates this photo to the Tannenberg battle.
I would not always assume malintent (at ancienthistorylists.com ), negligence, ignorance and laziness often suffice as explanation ...

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: jd755
Date: 2019-09-30 14:05:36
Reaction Score: 1

Is anything 'official' trustworthy?
Reconstructing Hindenburg's Victory at Tannenberg (1914)

On the Firing Line with the Germans (USA, 1915)
Wilbur H. Durborough's film On the Firing Line with the Germans, which was restored by the Library of Congress in 2015, offers an interesting example. Because of the restoration we were able to reconstruct the original edit from 1915. Scenes from Durborough's feature documentary film turned up in U.S. Signal Corps footage, as well as TV documentaries on the Great War by the BBC, CBS and the recent Armageddon series on World War I. We were surprised to find out that as early as during the Great War the Germans used scenes from Durborough's movie, showing the attack by the German army into Russian Poland, which he accompanied on the Eastern Front.

Horses pulling guns, in 1918. Different uniform but the same rig more or less as Napoleons army and the American civil war armies. They were still in use in WWII but that's for another thread.

Oh my god! Faking War Footage

 

[feralimal]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Feralimal
Date: 2019-09-30 14:10:56
Reaction Score: 0

We were surprised to find out that as early as during the Great War the Germans used scenes from Durborough's movie, showing the attack by the German army into Russian Poland, which he accompanied on the Eastern Front.

Oh? Sharing footage doesn't sound quite right, does it?