Who Would You have Sided with in World War I?

[Stealth Hunter]

Central Powers. I'd try to get in as a German, but I'd probably end up stuck with the Ottomans.

[JSLTIGER]

The Allies (aka Entente).

[Torplexed]

I got no dog in this royal hunt. I'll be Spain, Sweden, or Switzerland and remain neutral. :cool:

[Reece]

You pick some controversial topics Stealth Hunter, I actually placed a vote for Central Powers as the one thing that I didn't approve of was the constant harassment of German shipping by Britain whilst trying to get past England for trade with the rest of the world!:yep:

[Stealth Hunter]

You pick some controversial topics Stealth Hunter, I actually placed a vote for Central Powers as the one thing that I didn't approve of was the constant harassment of German shipping by Britain whilst trying to get past England for trade with the rest of the world!:yep:

Damn straight! I voted for the Central Powers because the British entered the Middle-East and stole oil from my Great-Grandfather, Mansour.

[August]

Having had a Great Grandfather who gave his life for one side and a Grandfather who fought on the other in the Great War I have to say i'd side with the allies. Not that I think one side was any more good or evil than the other it's just that i could not betray my country. Simple as that.

[Yahoshua]

I don't support either side. It was a pissing contest between governments, idealists, and hopelessly incompetent military leaders that got out of hand and ended up with one hell of a mess.

[kiwi_2005]

The Allies.

[joea]

I don't support either side. It was a pissing contest between governments, idealists, and hopelessly incompetent military leaders that got out of hand and ended up with one hell of a mess.

:yep: Yup it was this war that led to the destruction of the old order, maybe not so bad in itself, but what came after was much worse. Like those lovely fun loving Narzis. On a personal note, this war and the subsequent Greco-Turkish War of 1922 (which my Grandfather fought in) led to the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Greek-speaking Christians, including members of my family, from Asia Minor. Likewise for many Muslims from Greece, though far fewer to begin with. A mess indeed. :down:

[XXi]

And that`s the problem. One of my ancestors fought for Austro-Hungary, the other one was in the Russian army and then White Russian under baron Wrangl. Finally, the last one fought for Wilhelm II.
Generally, I think I`d vote for the Central Powers.

[HunterICX]

Neither,
After seeying docs about it, and learned more about it
I think its the most stupidist strategic war ever.
there was no honor, there was no heroism, you where meat, meat for the grinder as you went over the top towards them enemy machine guns.

HunterICX

[Skybird]

None. "For God and King" is not for me.

[goldorak]

I don't support either side. It was a pissing contest between governments, idealists, and hopelessly incompetent military leaders that got out of hand and ended up with one hell of a mess.

Doesn't it end up like that in every war ?

[antikristuseke]

In the aftermath of WW1 i would have sided with my own countrymen to secure our independance, but in the actual war itself i dont see myself siding with any of the factions, though realisticaly i might ahve been conscripted into imperial russias army had i been alive at that time.
As it is said, hindsight is allways 20/20

[August]

The thing about war is there are no neutrals. Those that say they wouldn't pick a side would likely have found themselves either drafted or reviled as a coward and shirker.

[nikimcbee]

My question is, would it have mattered if Germany won the War? So many bad things resulted because of that war (nazis, commies) What would have been the down side of Germany winning?

[Biggles]

I'm swedish. That means, in other words, I keep myself to the side that looks like it's winning.

[FIREWALL]

I'm swedish. That means, in other words, I keep myself to the side that looks like it's winning.



:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Takeda Shingen]

Assuming that I have no nationality, and that I can see objectively, I would choose the Central Powers for the reason that the, frankly, illegal English blockade of the North Sea was one of the factors that really excaserbated the conflict. If I have to assume a nationality, then I would go with my country and the Entente.

Off topic, this topic and its presentation are textbook examples of how to have a controversial discussion without being offensive. Cudos to Stealth Hunter. I hope that everyone else is taking notes.

[August]

the, frankly, illegal English blockade of the North Sea

What was so illegal about it?

[elite_hunter_sh3]

Central Powers simply because The Germans were always #1 when it came to war technology. :arrgh!:

[Brag]

Both of my grandfathers were in the Russian Army. Soooo, the natural thing is the natural thing to do.

[Takeda Shingen]

What was so illegal about it?

The British Admiralty, on 2 November 1914, declared the entire North Sea as a war zone. This was against international maritime law. The British also cried foul when Germany retorted by declaring all of the waters around Great Britian a war zone. Political pressure, most notably the potential entrance of the United States into the war, forced Germany to back down. This was less than fair, but that is war.

[STEED]

Central Powers simply because The Germans were always #1 when it came to war technology. :arrgh!:

Really. :hmm:

http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/tanks/german-tanks1.jpg

[Takeda Shingen]

Central Powers simply because The Germans were always #1 when it came to war technology. :arrgh!:

Really. :hmm:

http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/tanks/german-tanks1.jpg

Not to mention that Great Britian was the day's leader in battleship technology.

[Stealth Hunter]

Fortunately, they --Britain- lacked submarines. Unfortunately, Germany didn't push their tactics to a new and more covert level.

The Germans were required to warn allied crewmen when they were going to torpedo a ship. Unfortunately, this cost many German sailors their lives because the British decided to add hidden guns to freighters and such.

[August]

The British Admiralty, on 2 November 1914, declared the entire North Sea as a war zone. This was against international maritime law. The British also cried foul when Germany retorted by declaring all of the waters around Great Britian a war zone. Political pressure, most notably the potential entrance of the United States into the war, forced Germany to back down. This was less than fair, but that is war.

Interesting, thanks.

[kiwi_2005]

Fortunately, they --Britain- lacked submarines. Unfortunately, Germany didn't push their tactics to a new and more covert level.

The Germans were required to warn allied crewmen when they were going to torpedo a ship. Unfortunately, this cost many German sailors their lives because the British decided to add hidden guns to freighters and such.

Nor did any escorts have depth charges, so really it was easy pickings unless they tried a surface attack only to find the merchant turns out to be a Q ship.

U-9 commanded by Weddigen sunk 3 english battlecruisers - the Aboukir, Cressy, and Hogue within 1 hour.

[Stealth Hunter]

To add to Takeda's statement, the British liner, Lusitania, was also carrying munitions at the time she was sunk off the coast of Ireland, which was a violation of the law. When Kptlt. Schweiger sank it, the Brits had the audacity to claim that he was decorated as a hero by the Kaiser, which he was NOT. Winsor McCay made the same outrageous claim for propaganda.

[August]

To add to Takeda's statement, the British liner, Lusitania, was also carrying munitions at the time she was sunk off the coast of Ireland, which was a violation of the law. When Kptlt. Schweiger sank it, the Brits had the audacity to claim that he was decorated as a hero by the Kaiser, which he was NOT. Winsor McCay made the same outrageous claim for propaganda.

Indeed. The German embassy actually printed handbills and took out newspaper ads before the Lusitania sailed warning passengers that she was a valid war target, sailing into a declared war zone and would be attacked if spotted.

http://www.md.lp.org/newsletters/may01/cunard.jpg

[Stealth Hunter]

Indeed, and if I'm not mistaken, there were also signs posted ABOARD the ship that it was a potential military target.

[bradclark1]

What was so illegal about it?

The British Admiralty, on 2 November 1914, declared the entire North Sea as a war zone. This was against international maritime law. The British also cried foul when Germany retorted by declaring all of the waters around Great Britian a war zone. Political pressure, most notably the potential entrance of the United States into the war, forced Germany to back down. This was less than fair, but that is war.

The butchering of civilians in the low lands by the Germans wasn't fair either. I would be allied just for that reason.

[Tchocky]

My country didn't exist at the time, so I can't really trust to nationalism.
The behaviour of the Central Powers in Belgium turns me against them, but neither side had a monopoly on atrocities.
Conscientious objection, possibly, were it not for the horrendous self-loathing that such a choice would bring.

Ah jeez, I dunno. Just give me a Camel on a spring afternoon with a half-tank of petrol.

[bradclark1]

Central Powers simply because The Germans were always #1 when it came to war technology. :arrgh!:

Really. :hmm:

http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/tanks/german-tanks1.jpg

Not to mention that Great Britain was the day's leader in battleship technology.
No, actually the Germans were far more advanced. The German navy would have won if they'd have fought. They were better trained in gunnery. Their ship design of their modern ships were better armored and safer. Great Britain's destroyers however was of better quality. Brtish shells were junk and just bounced off. As Beatty said "Their is something wrong with our ships" (close enough quote). GB had the Kaiser to thank for being too scared to put his expensive ships in danger. Luck won the naval battle, not skill.

[Stealth Hunter]

Ah jeez, I dunno. Just give me a Camel on a spring afternoon with a half-tank of petrol.

Granted:

http://www.earlyaviator.com/archive/w/images/Mareno.jpg

Still excited?

[Torplexed]

Both sides will argure forever about who won at Jutland. However the British were clearly in possession of the battlefield on June 1st 1916. The High Seas fleet although it lost fewer ships was in no position to come out again. After that the North Sea pretty much stalemated. In the end it was the High Seas Fleet's morale which cracked. The British had a far less hospitable base at Scapa but at least they were able to keep themselves busy at sea.

As for better German technology it's kind of interesting that Germany's General Staff (particularly Ludendorff) took a rather dim and skeptical view of the newfangled tank considering Germany's future reputation with them. The Germans only built a few primitive types, leaving the eventual infantry-tank formations which supported the Allied counter-offensives of 1918 to be pioneered by the British and French.

[Stealth Hunter]

However, Jutland hit the Brits with a huge blow to their naval forces (several thousand Brits killed and quite a few warships sunk). The Germans, however, never really recovered with their battleship fleet. With that said, I would state it as tactically inconclusive.

[bradclark1]

Jutland for Britain was a tactical defeat but a strategic victory. Again, thank the Kaiser.

[Yahoshua]

I don't support either side. It was a pissing contest between governments, idealists, and hopelessly incompetent military leaders that got out of hand and ended up with one hell of a mess.

Doesn't it end up like that in every war ?

Most of the wars of the 20th century have started this way, but others started either as a continutation of international rivalry, inter-tribal warfare, or just sheer expansionism.

[Marriott]

id go with the central powers.

[August]

id go with the central powers.

You could shoot your fellow Canadians? Mow them down in rows with your Maxim as they advance toward your bunker on Vimy ridge?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I took the question as "If I were God, who will I have helped win", so I chose the Central Powers. My personal reason is Versailles. As treaties go, it is arguably WORSE than the Unequal Treaties on China. The apologists attempts to justify it using Brest-Litovsk and the Treaty the Germans might have sicced on the Allies if they won is asinine.

What really bugs me is not the Massive Reparations, nor the Territorial Losses, or even the Admission of Guilt crap. All that crap goes with losing, and countries tend to get over them (France paid off Germany's reparations after the Prussian-France War surprisingly fast). It is the Military provisions. I don't know why that part is so under-emphasized, when it is (as written), the harshest part. It has no time duration, no set way to pay it off ... etc.

Why don't they say "Well, this is what we're grabbing from you now, but we've got unlimited De Facto rights to get more at any time we please, simply because you don't have an Army left." I don't see a line on Brest-Litovsk that could compare with that clause of unlimited punishment (as written).

The sheer diktatness of that farce makes me utterly unsympathetic to the French when the Germans rolled over them in 1940 - they practically begged for it to happen.

[Yahoshua]

Better to judge a historical event with the facts in existing context before the event ocurred, than to look back and choose sides based on who won the most or who lost the least.

[mrbeast]

No, actually the Germans were far more advanced. The German navy would have won if they'd have fought. They were better trained in gunnery. Their ship design of their modern ships were better armored and safer. Great Britain's destroyers however was of better quality. Brtish shells were junk and just bounced off. As Beatty said "Their is something wrong with our ships" (close enough quote). GB had the Kaiser to thank for being too scared to put his expensive ships in danger. Luck won the naval battle, not skill.

The Germans weren't neccesarily better trained at gunnery. They used a different type of range finder (stereoscopic as opposed to telescopic) which allowed them very accurate opening salvoes, however it had the draw back of tiring the operators eyes and often causing headaches. So this efficiency dropped off as RN effficiency increased over time during an engagement.

Many British shells failed to explode or shattered rather than penetrating fully at Jutland, however, this problem was rectified soon after.

It is true that Geraman capital ships were very well constructed and armoured. But the losses of RN battle cruisers had more to do with the fact they ended up tangling with German BCs and dreadnoughts (plus the BC fleets obssesion with rapid fire and the relaxing of safety regulations to attain this). Some RN ships suffered quite a number of main armament hits and survived the battle.

The High Seas fleet could not match the Grand Fleet in a fleet engagement like Jutland and I would argue that the Germans lost both tactically and strategically at Jutland. If they had not turned away when they did, the numbers of German ships sunk would have been much higher.

The German Navy knew this as their entire strategy was to lure out the Grand Fleet in small groups and defeat each one in turn. It never ventured out again to any great degree as it had discovered at Jutland that it was out gunned and out matched.

[Stealth Hunter]

Perhaps if the U-boats and battleships had worked together, the Germans could have won Jutland. Unfortunately, the Germans chose to send their ships in first and then send in the U-boats.

[mrbeast]

Perhaps if the U-boats and battleships had worked together, the Germans could have won Jutland. Unfortunately, the Germans chose to send their ships in first and then send in the U-boats.

That actually was a secondary strategy at Jutland. The High Seas Fleet planned that if the dreadnought battle did not go to their liking they would withdraw, hopefully drawing elements of the Grand Fleet over a line of U boats. However, the strategy failed due to the German navy's inability to coordinate the surface fleet and U boats in a single action. Consiquently I don't think a single U boat sighted the Grand Fleet during the entire battle IIRC.

[bradclark1]

The Germans weren't neccesarily better trained at gunnery. They used a different type of range finder (stereoscopic as opposed to telescopic) which allowed them very accurate opening salvoes, however it had the draw back of tiring the operators eyes and often causing headaches. So this efficiency dropped off as RN effficiency increased over time during an engagement.
The Germans practiced at gunnery while the British hardly practiced at all. The RN efficiency picked up as the ships drew nearer not because they got better. A cruiser group had to be taken out for gunnery training because they were so bad. Thats why the group of battleships ended up with Beatty and his cruisers.
It is true that Geraman capital ships were very well constructed and armoured. But the losses of RN battle cruisers had more to do with the fact they ended up tangling with German BCs and dreadnoughts (plus the BC fleets obssesion with rapid fire and the relaxing of safety regulations to attain this). Some RN ships suffered quite a number of main armament hits and survived the battle.
Losses in an engagement are losses. The fire doors removal had to do with fleet computation and officers where under pressure. I guess accuracy didn't count.
The High Seas fleet could not match the Grand Fleet in a fleet engagement like Jutland and I would argue that the Germans lost both tactically and strategically at Jutland. If they had not turned away when they did, the numbers of German ships sunk would have been much higher.
The Grand Fleet couldn't even communicate with each other for their fear of using the wireless and they kept getting too far away from each other to read signals. Officers were too scared to use their intuitive. When Jellico tried contacting Beatty on wireless he ignored him. "If they had not" doesn't count. What happened happened. Beatty abandoned his battleships in his run to get back to the fleet.
When the fleets met British captains could have engaged but held their fire because they had not been told to engage. Jellico was too cautious and Sheer was too cautious so the whole battle was touchy, feely.
More British ships were sunk than German. I'd call that a tactical victory. I used to think it was a British victory until I started studying the battle. the High seas Fleet didn't come out again because the Kaiser didn't want to risk his precious ships. Thats what gave Britain the strategic victory.
If it had been an actual fleet on fleet knock down drag out fight who knows but it never was.

[NiclDoe]

I am None. But I would like to know why the war was a watse of men, naval, and air units!

[mrbeast]

The Germans practiced at gunnery while the British hardly practiced at all. The RN efficiency picked up as the ships drew nearer not because they got better. A cruiser group had to be taken out for gunnery training because they were so bad. Thats why the group of battleships ended up with Beatty and his cruisers.

Thats not correct. Beatty's BCs were very poor shots, but that was because being stationed at Rosyth, they were too close to Edinburgh and Kirkaldy to fire their main armament. So to make up for this they practiced loading and unloading to increase the rate of fire. The Grand Fleet up at Scapa had no such restraints and regularly practiced gunnery. The Grand fleet were actually very good shots.

'Their shooting was also good with their rangefinders proving superior to the British at getting an initial range though inferior at maintaining it and in general their fire control equipment was inferior to the British director system. Excepting Beattys battlecruisers German hit rates were not superior, especially if you take into account the large number of hits (37) scored against the three sunk armoured cruisers at short range and the poor shooting of Beattys battlecruisers which dragged the British average down'.

http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/outcome.html

The High Seas Feet failed to land a single hit on Jellicoe's dreadnoughts.


Losses in an engagement are losses.

True, but previously you suggested that British losses were due to the inferiority of RN ships. But in many ways RN ships were superior to German ships. They had better endurance, they were mechanically more reliable, they generally had greater fire power and their guns usually outranged the Germans (this was in no small part to British turrets having a greater elevation than German). British central gunnery control was better and British armour plate was inch for inch better than german. The losses that the BC fleet suffered were not due to material short comings but operational. German cordite handling was better and their ships had a greater number of compartments than British, which tended to keep them afloat longer.



The Grand Fleet couldn't even communicate with each other for their fear of using the wireless and they kept getting too far away from each other to read signals. Officers were too scared to use their intuitive. When Jellico tried contacting Beatty on wireless he ignored him. "If they had not" doesn't count. What happened happened. Beatty abandoned his battleships in his run to get back to the fleet.
When the fleets met British captains could have engaged but held their fire because they had not been told to engage. Jellico was too cautious and Sheer was too cautious so the whole battle was touchy, feely.

True the Grand Fleet kept radio silence and the RN was tied to rather rigid doctrine of the 'signal book'. Beatty (though IMO not a very good officer in many ways) did have a more effective principle of command. That was a 'follow me' style rather than a 'wait till I signal' style. This is what caused the 5th Battle Squadron to be left behind when Beatty turned to the north inorder to draw the HSF onto Jellicoe's battle line. The 5th BS had been detached from the GF and had not trained with Beatty (infact Beatty didn't even bother to meet its commander, Evan Thomas before the battle). The 5th BS was waiting for the signal to reverse course rather than just following Beatty's lead. Short commings in signals were a major handicap for the RN.

What happend was that to avoid annihalation, the HSF was forced to turn away.

More British ships were sunk than German. I'd call that a tactical victory.
I used to think it was a British victory until I started studying the battle. the High seas Fleet didn't come out again because the Kaiser didn't want to risk his precious ships. Thats what gave Britain the strategic victory.

Thats a Geraman victory in only a very crude sense. It was the GF that was in command of the battle zone at the end of the battle. It was the HSF that had to turn away and spent all night trying to evade the GF. It was the HSF that was lured onto the GF not Beatty onto the HSF as the Germans had planned. All German objectives for the operation failed, Yes they had depleted the RN by 3 Battle Cruisers but the RN still had numerical superiority over the KM but the cost was almost catastrophic. It was only the turn away or Gefechtskertwendung by the HSF that saved it (a very complex manouvre that the RN did not know the HSF had the capacity to carry out). The HSF was almost caught a second time but again it managed to escape into the gathering gloom.

Strategically the battle was unquestionably a British victory. But the reason the HSF never came out to fight again was that it had found that its planned strategy had failed; It couldn't match the GF and was afraid of being caught again. It wasn't the whim of the Kaiser that kept the HSF holed up in port but the realisation that the whole of German naval strategy for decades had failed. Naval warfare now switched decisively towards U boats.

I used to think that tactically the Germans won, but if you discard the casualty figures its clearly a German defeat on all counts.

If it had been an actual fleet on fleet knock down drag out fight who knows but it never was.

There in lies the fascination that Jutaland holds for so many; The might have beens.

IMO I think that in clash like this the RN would probably have won, a very costly victory, but a victory.

A very good book to read on Jutland is: The Rules Of The Game, Jutland And British Naval Command. By Andrew Gordon

[Tchocky]

I am None. But I would like to know why the war was a watse of men, naval, and air units!
I recommend The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman.
It won't answer the "why", but it will give you the "how".

[bradclark1]

I didn't say British ships were inferior. I said the Germans were better armored (as far as BC's anyway) and I should have said armored topside, and they were safer in being compartmentalized and turret fire doors systems.
It was no whim of the Kaiser. He felt tricked by his admirals into letting the fleet out and he didn't want to mess with the GF until they were numerically superior.
Beatty's style of leadership was cavalier and follow me. Thats good (breaking the mold) and bad depending on how you want to look at it. He was however a backstabbing piece of s#!t to Jellico.
I haven't cracked my Jutland books in a while but I'm starting to get back into it. I recently picked up: Jutland An Analysis Of The Fighting by John Campbell that I just started.
When I've reviewed my books I wouldn't mind rehashing with you.

A very good book to read on Jutland is: The Rules Of The Game, Jutland And British Naval Command. By Andrew Gordon
:) Thats on my Amazon shopping list for the end of the month.

[mrbeast]

I didn't say British ships were inferior. I said the Germans were better armored (as far as BC's anyway) and I should have said armored topside, and they were safer in being compartmentalized and turret fire doors systems.

I agree with your asessement of German Battle Cruisers, compared to British BCs they did have better armour protection. The RN adhered to a very purist concept of the Battle Cruiser as laid down by Jacky Fisher ('HMS Untouchable' I think he called the idea, 'Outguns anything that can outrun it and outruns anything that can outgun it'). The Germans on the otherhand were a little more cautious about the idea so they hedged their bets by building more robust vessels.

Sorry if I misunderstood your point in pevious posts.


Beatty's style of leadership was cavalier and follow me. Thats good (breaking the mold) and bad depending on how you want to look at it. He was however a backstabbing piece of s#!t to Jellico.

I'm not keen on Beatty as a character. He comes accross as a very ambitious and swaggering type who had no compunction when it came to taking credit or pushing his version of events. Even to the point of betraying or trampling on the reputation of others. Jellicoe was the polar opposite, quiet, self effacing and friendly. Is a shame that hes remembered as the man who squandered the chance to destroy the HSF.

I haven't cracked my Jutland books in a while but I'm starting to get back into it. I recently picked up: Jutland An Analysis Of The Fighting by John Campbell that I just started.
When I've reviewed my books I wouldn't mind rehashing with you.

Yeah that would be good.:up: Maybe start a Jutland thread?:hmm:

A very good book to read on Jutland is: The Rules Of The Game, Jutland And British Naval Command. By Andrew Gordon
:) Thats on my Amazon shopping list for the end of the month.

I'd recomend that to anybody interested in Jutland. Gordon makes a very compelling argument, plus the descriptions of the action are very good.

Another good book is Castles Of Steel by Robert K Massie.

[bradclark1]

Another good book is Castles Of Steel by Robert K Massie.
Thats an excellent book. Reads more like a story. Thats the first history book I've read from cover to cover.

[NiclDoe]

I am None. But I would like to know why the war was a watse of men, naval, and air units!
I recommend The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman.
It won't answer the "why", but it will give you the "how".
thanks!:D

[Jimbuna]

Another good book is Castles Of Steel by Robert K Massie.
Thats an excellent book. Reads more like a story. Thats the first history book I've read from cover to cover.

Yep, a great read http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/thumbsup.gif

http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/read2.gif

[badhat17]

A while ago after reading the book by Campbell it struck me that there has been no attempt to make a film about Jutland, well at least as far as I am aware. I would have thought it had all the elements required for a blockbuster.
Maybe in this age of CGI somebody will have a crack at it.

[Torplexed]

A while ago after reading the book by Campbell it struck me that there has been no attempt to make a film about Jutland, well at least as far as I am aware. I would have thought it had all the elements required for a blockbuster.
Maybe in this age of CGI somebody will have a crack at it.
Nooo! Don't let Hollywood touch it. They'll have Chuck Norris yanking the Lion's red-hot shell hoist doors shut with his bare hands without breaking a sweat, and then swimming ashore to beat up the Kaiser. :p

[August]

I'd say the best people to make a movie about Jutland would be the British. Do Brit movie producers have similar CGI capability compared to Hollywierd?

[badhat17]

I'd say the best people to make a movie about Jutland would be the British. Do Brit movie producers have similar CGI capability compared to Hollywierd?


Sort of, in a typicaly cheap arsed fashion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRS9cpOMYv0

[mrbeast]

What you need is American money and British Film makers:up:

[Jimbuna]

What you need is American money and British Film makers:up:

Most definitely :up:

[bradclark1]

I would have thought it had all the elements required for a blockbuster.
I don't think so. There really isn't a lot that happened. Maybe thirty minutes of movie action time. I guess they could include stuff about Beatty's marriage but that just ruins a movie.

[Jimbuna]

The biggest problem would more than likely be how to model a sufficient number of 'realistic' dreadnoughts without resorting to archive footage :hmm:

[August]

The biggest problem would more than likely be how to model a sufficient number of 'realistic' dreadnoughts without resorting to archive footage :hmm:

CGI would solve that problem.

[August]

I would have thought it had all the elements required for a blockbuster. I don't think so. There really isn't a lot that happened. Maybe thirty minutes of movie action time. I guess they could include stuff about Beatty's marriage but that just ruins a movie.

I think there is plenty to fill out a movie without getting too much into character development.

[Jimbuna]

The biggest problem would more than likely be how to model a sufficient number of 'realistic' dreadnoughts without resorting to archive footage :hmm:

CGI would solve that problem.

That's why we'd need the American funding. :lol:

There's a 4 disc DVD set called 'Dogfights' which amongst other things, recreates the demise of the Bismarck and the dogfighting characteristics of the Japanese Zero. The CGI is excellent, well worth a viewing :up: