What attracted you to this project?

It was a fantastic opportunity to try and unravel connections across millennia. A grasp of the detail is obviously important but it’s just as satisfying to reveal patterns in the development of technologies and to try and understand how they tie in with social and political change.

What makes Ground War stand out in comparison to other history and science documentaries that you have done?

The sheer scale of it. If you begin with a gigantic spear in the hands of the infantry of Alexander the Great and end with American troops firing M4 assault rifles you know you have been on a journey. 2000 years in the course of an hour. But what we wanted to achieve was to combine this journey with thrilling demonstrations of the power of weapons themselves.

Ground War highlights a number of important technological innovations over a long period of time but could not include all of them. How did you decide which technologies to leave in and which to leave out of the film?

This was a very difficult challenge and there isn’t a single simple answer. Inevitably there will be missing technologies which some may argue should be there. Weapons designers have concentrated their efforts on improving range, accuracy, power and rate of fire. I tried to highlight technologies which spoke to those areas and then make hard selections of the weapons which had actually changed the course of battles.

There is a lot of focus on the military advancements and technology during specific periods such as the Middle Ages, the Civil War, and WWII. Was there a specific reason for this?

There are certain periods in history when technology accelerates with extraordinary speed. Clearly involvement in major warfare increases that speed. These periods illustrate that. The Civil War period for instance saw an amazing leap forward in technology, both in the development of rifles and also the beginnings of rapid fire weapons which subsequently dominated World War I. The tank dominated World War II and it was impossible to tell the story of mobile warfare without concentrating on that critical period.

How did working with the different types of technology affect the production of Ground War?

Obviously there was a lot of live firing and plenty of explosions in order to demonstrate the weapons. In production terms we decided to do most of our live firing in the US because its much less bureaucratic to get
permission to discharge weapons. In the UK for instance you can only fire automatic weapons on a range and pointing out to sea. It’s very expensive and time consuming. That being said safety regulations have to be keenly observed in the States also for TV demonstrations.

Did you film in any unusual locations?
One of my strangest experiences was filming at the National Training Center in California. Soldiers there were preparing to go to Iraq and Afghanistan. We filmed in an amazing mock up of an Iraqi village where US troops were trained how to cope with IED explosions and resulting military and civilian casualties. It was highly realistic with “bomb” detonations, Iraqi actors posing as victims. There were even actors with prosthetic legs which they discarded for effect after the explosion. This was the use of Hollywood expertise and techniques for military preparation.

The film introduces new technology in development that will further change ground warfare (such as the new camouflage skins used on Leopard II tanks, and the exoskeleton). What impact do you think they will have?

Make no mistake — emerging technology will have a massive effect on future wars. One of the biggest research projects will probably center on invisibility. Today if you can detect a weapon you can probably kill it so a lot of research and cash is trying to deliver ways to make weapons and men less visible to electronic warfare. For instance a tank can be extremely vulnerable, but if you can disguise it from the enemy’s detection capability the tank will remain a key weapon.

What was the most interesting thing that you learned while making the film?

That innovation and creative thinking offer the same game winning solutions for today’s armies as they did for the Greeks.

What was the most exciting part in making Ground War?

Probably the most exciting thing was the opportunity to spend time with the troops who were on their way to current theatres of war. And also being so close to and in some cases firing weapons which in their time had been battle-winning weapons. Like the Maxim Gun, the deathly executioner of World
War I. Or being deafened in the turret of a Russian T34, the legendary tank of World War II. These are once in a lifetime experiences.

What new projects are you working on?

I’m researching another weapons project which emerged from my work on
Ground War. It seems warfare’s here to stay.

Narrator
R.J. ALLISON

Producer/Director
JAMES MILLAR

Editor
PAUL WATSON

Director of Photography
BEN HODGSON

Graphics
IMAGE FOUNDRY STUDIOS

Original Music
ORGANIQ MUSIC

Sound Record
DARRELL BRIGGS

Audio Mixers
ED CAMPBELL
JON BERMAN

Assistant Producer
DOMINIC ASTON

Production Coordinator
LISA TYRIE

Production Manager
FRANCES SWARBRICK

Special Thanks
DOUG SETTERS
FLORENCE LAMOUSSE
ITZIK GREENBERG
JARI VILLANUEVA
MEDIEVAL CENTRE, DENMARK
RICHARD ALVAREZ
ROULA NASRALLAH
LONGWOOD UNIVERSITY, USA

Stock Footage
FOOTAGE FARM
ITN SOURCE/ BRITISH PATHE
ITN SOURCE/REUTERS
WPA FILM LIBRARY
BIBLIOTHEQUE NATIONALE DE FRANCE
BALTIMORE AREA CONVENTION AND VISITORS ASSOCIATION

Production Assistant
CURTIS STILES

Coordinating Producer
STEPHANIE CARTER

Project Manager
JULIE SCHAPIRO THORMAN

Online Editors
JAY SLOT
MICHAEL WEINGRAD

Executive Producer, Granada
LIZ MCLEOD

Executive in Charge
WILLIAM R. GRANT

Executive Producer, THIRTEEN
JARED LIPWORTH

An ITV Studios Production for THIRTEEN in association with ITV Global Entertainment, National Geographic Channels International, and WNET.ORG

Narrator
R.J. ALLISON

Producer/Director
JAMES MILLAR

Editor
PAUL WATSON

Director of Photography
BEN HODGSON

Graphics
IMAGE FOUNDRY STUDIOS

Original Music
ORGANIQ MUSIC

Sound Record
DARRELL BRIGGS

Audio Mixers
ED CAMPBELL
JON BERMAN

Assistant Producer
DOMINIC ASTON

Production Coordinator
LISA TYRIE

Production Manager
FRANCES SWARBRICK

Special Thanks
BAE SYSTEMS HATTIESBURG
CHARLES SMITHGALL
NICK CHINN & MIKE SWEENEY
U.S. ARMY, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS – LOS ANGELES

Stock Footage
FOOTAGE FARM
GETTY IMAGES
ITN SOURCE/ BRITISH PATHE
ITN SOURCE/REUTERS
PHOTOLIBRARY GROUP/OXFORD SCIENTIFIC (OSF)
TAYLORS EAYRE AND SMITH LTD, LOUGHBOROUGH
WPA FILM LIBRARY

Production Assistant
CURTIS STILES

Coordinating Producer
STEPHANIE CARTER

Project Manager
JULIE SCHAPIRO THORMAN

Online Editors
JAY SLOT
MICHAEL WEINGRAD

Executive Producer, Granada
LIZ MCLEOD

Executive in Charge
WILLIAM R. GRANT

Executive Producer, THIRTEEN
JARED LIPWORTH

An ITV Studios Production for THIRTEEN in association with ITV Global Entertainment, National Geographic Channels International, and WNET.ORG

© 2009 WNET.ORG

This program was produced by ITV Studios and THIRTEEN, which are solely responsible for its content.

Narrator
R.J. ALLISON

Producer/Director
ROGER FINNIGAN

Editor
DAVE MARSLAND

Director of Photography
NIGEL KINNINGS

Graphics
IMAGE FOUNDRY STUDIOS

Original Music
ORGANIQ MUSIC

Sound Record
ROSS NEASHAM

Audio Mixers
ED CAMPBELL
JON BERMAN

Assistant Producer
LOUISE IRELAND

Production Coordinator
LISA TYRIE

Production Manager
FRANCES SWARBRICK

Special Thanks
COBBATON COMBAT COLLECTION
PENNSBURY ENTERPRISES, INC.
SAAB BARRACUDA AB
U.S. ARMY FORT STEWART
US ARMY ORDNANCE MUSEUM, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND
U.S. ARMY, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS – LOS ANGELES

Stock Footage
ANCIENT ART & ARCHITECTURE COLLECTION
GENERAL DYNAMICS LAND SYSTEMS
GETTY IMAGES
ITN SOURCE/BRITISH PATHE
ITN SOURCE/REUTERS

Production Assistant
CURTIS STILES

Coordinating Producer
STEPHANIE CARTER

Project Manager
JULIE SCHAPIRO THORMAN

Online Editors
JAY SLOT
MICHAEL WEINGRAD

Executive Producer, Granada
LIZ MCLEOD

Executive in Charge
WILLIAM R. GRANT

Executive Producer, THIRTEEN
JARED LIPWORTH

An ITV Studios Production for THIRTEEN in association with ITV Global Entertainment, National Geographic Channels International, and WNET.ORG

© 2009 WNET.ORG

This program was produced by ITV Studios and THIRTEEN, which are solely responsible for its content.

Narrator
R.J. ALLISON

Producer/Director
ROGER FINNIGAN

Editor
DANIEL WARD

Director of Photography
NIGEL KINNINGS

Graphics
IMAGE FOUNDRY STUDIOS

Original Music
BOB BRADLEY AT ORGANIQ MUSIC

Sound Record
ROSS NEASHAM

Audio Mixers
ED CAMPBELL
JON BERMAN

Assistant Producer
LOUISE IRELAND

Production Co-ordinator
LISA TYRIE

Production Manager
FRANCES SWARBRICK

Special Thanks
CHRIS SALTER
RAYTHEON COMPANY
U.S. ARMY ABERDEEN TEST CENTER
U.S. ARMY FORT STEWART
U.S. ARMY ORDNANCE MUSEUM ABERDEEN
U.S. ARMY, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS – LOS ANGELES

Stock Footage
AP ARCHIVE
DISCOVERY FOOTAGESOURCE
FOOTAGE FARM
GETTY IMAGES
ITN SOURCE/BRITISH PATHE

Stock Footage
ITN SOURCE/REUTERS
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
OTIS HISTORICAL ARCHIVES, NATIONAL MUSEUM OF HEALTH AND MEDICINE, WASHINGTON, DC
RAYTHEON COMPANY
TOPFOTO

Production Assistant
CURTIS STILES

Coordinating Producer
STEPHANIE CARTER

Project Manager
JULIE SCHAPIRO THORMAN

Online Editors
JAY SLOT
MICHAEL WEINGRAD

Executive Producer, Granada
LIZ MCLEOD

Executive in Charge
WILLIAM R. GRANT

Executive Producer, THIRTEEN
JARED LIPWORTH

An ITV Studios Production for THIRTEEN in association with ITV Global Entertainment, National Geographic Channels International, and WNET.ORG

© 2009 WNET.ORG

This program was produced by ITV Studios and THIRTEEN, which are solely responsible for its content.

What about Ground War’s storytelling approach is different from Warship or Warplane?

I didn’t work on those series so it’s difficult to say how different in detail this series is. But Ground War had to cover a much greater expanse of history and a massive, complex subject matter. So by necessity we had to leave lots of stuff out. There are a lot more demonstrations and experiments in Ground War than Warship or Warplane and I would say that it’s faster-paced and punchier. But that’s how we had to cut our cloth. We’re taking the viewer through some 4,000 years of major technological developments and having to explain the historical context as well as how these changes affect the tactics that commanders use in war.

Describe the video production crew for a project like this.

Myself, my assistant producer, a cameraman and sound recordist was the crew. There was a series production manager as well and a production co-ordinator, both of whom were office based. In certain countries like Syria and Israel we also had a local fixer that we hired. We had just a basic lighting kit really and wherever possible did interviews outside. Shooting the series in the northern hemisphere winter though meant we did have to do quite a few interior interviews.

Ground War takes you to a number of different countries, terrains and battlefield sites. Which sites made the greatest impression on you?

Craq de Chevaliers in Syria, a very impressive medieval castle on a mountain top from the Crusader period of history, was a breath-taking location. Also the extraordinarily intact underground fortresses that made up the Maginot Line in France. And Fort McHenry in Baltimore had a kind of beautiful symmetry to it.

What was the most unexpected thing you learned while making Ground War?

That Fort McHenry, the famous defense of which inspired the writing of America’s national anthem, was a fortress based on the designs of a brilliant French military engineer. Without Sebastien Vauban (a man I imagine is not exactly a household name in the USA!) there would be no “Star-spangled Banner.”

Did you find that the future of Ground War technology rested with private institutions, government research, universities, or some sort of combination?

Yes a combination. But it’s private companies like BAE Systems that are the main drivers in research and development.

Did you run into classification limits regarding which technologies you were allowed to see?

Yes. We weren’t for instance allowed to see inside the interior of the N-LOS cannon artillery system that we filmed at a military testing facility near Yuma, Arizona.

These technologies have obviously had an effect on the way wars are fought. What’s the broader historical/cultural significance of “the way wars are fought?”

The immediate impact of war is becoming more and more detached from the actions of individual soldiers on a battlefield. Technological advances mean that devastating firepower can be brought to bear over huge distances with incredible accuracy. There are of course still short range firefights in Afghanistan and Iraq, as we see on the TV news. But modern artillery and tanks are shooting over vast distances and so the people delivering the firepower rarely see up close just how destructive the forces are that they unleash. The development of artillery for instance has led soldiers to become slowly more divorced from the act of killing.

What’s the next project you’re working on?

I’m doing an archaeological series for broadcast on Channel 4 in the UK called ‘Time Team’. It’s basically
following a team of archaeologists and a presenter who have three days to excavate a site. It could be anything from a neolithic village to a World War Two gun battery.

Dr. Lawrence M. Kaplan has served as an historian with the U.S. Army Field Artillery Center and Fort Sill, the U.S. Army Center of Military History, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, and is currently the U.S. Army Cyber Command historian. He is the author of Homer Lea: American Soldier of Fortune (University Press of Kentucky, 2010) and the editor of John C. Tidball, The Artillery Service in the War of the Rebellion (Westholme Press, 2011).
.

How did Germany develop the V-2, the world’s first ballistic missile?

Germany’s loss in World War I (1914-1918) influenced its emergence as the first country to actively pursue development of military rockets. The 1919 Versailles Treaty that ended the war placed severe restrictions on German military forces, including a proscription against heavy artillery. Consequently, leaders of Germany’s post-war army began looking for new armaments that would increase the fighting power of their limited forces without violating the Treaty. Rockets, which were not restricted by the Treaty, offered Germany such a potential weapon.

In 1929 Germany began research and development of short-range rockets for military purposes. Within a few years the army decided to explore the prospects of developing a long-range rocket as a replacement for heavy artillery.

In 1932 the German Army hired a brilliant, twenty year old engineering doctoral candidate named Wernher von Braun to head up their rocket research program. Two years later, in December 1934, he successfully completed two tests of the Aggregate-2, or A-2 rocket, which weighed about 235 pounds and was a little over five feet long.

In 1937 the German Air Force, which was interested in the development of rocket-powered aircraft, formed an alliance with the Army to provide funding for a huge rocket research facility at Peenemünde, on the Baltic coast. The Peenemünde team made rapid progress over the next five years and moved beyond development of unguided rockets to guided missiles.

In June 1942 the Peenemünde team carried out the first successful launch of the Aggregate-4, or A-4, later called Vergeltungswaffe Zwei (Vengence Weapon-2) or V-2, the world’s first ballistic missile. It was approximately 45-feet high, five-feet wide, contained an internal guidance system, and could deliver a conventional 1,600 pound warhead to a range of about 200 miles. As advanced as it was, however, it had some significant design limitations. Its size was limited because during transport to launching sites, its stabilization fins had to fit through all the tunnels and underpasses in Europe. Also, the choice of fuel, ordinary ethyl alcohol, was decided on availability, not efficiency.

The Germans fired their first operational V-2 against Great Britain on September 8, 1944. It was not a decisive weapon; it was inaccurate and carried a limited payload. By the end of the war more than 1,000 had fallen on Great Britain, as well as hitting targets in Belgium, France, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. There was no defense against them, other than bombing their launch sites.

The V-2 signaled the start of the missile age. Before the war ended, Germany was working on plans for extended-range versions of it, including an intercontinental missile that could hit targets in America.

What impact did smokeless powder have on artillery?

The development of smokeless powder in the mid-1880s contributed to a significant shift in artillery methods. With dense clouds of smoke no longer spreading over a battery and interfering with its aim, the fire became more rapid and more accurate with a new generation of breech-loading rifled artillery with on-carriage recoil systems, such as the M1897 French 75-mm field gun, the first modern field gun.

While smokeless powder significantly increased artillery ranges, it also led to improved long-range small arms that posed a greater threat to men and animals in the open than ever before. Field artillery pieces initially began adopting shields to protect its gunners, and subsequently guns were painted with an assortment of primary colors, known as camouflage, to lessen their exposure on the battlefield.

Field artilleryman began looking for ways to exploit the valuable element of tactical surprise on their opponents, provided their field pieces could be successfully hidden or masked and they used some method of indirect fire. The idea of a forward observer working from an advanced position or from an elevated platform and somehow communicating back to the guns solved the theoretical problem of allowing visual observation of distant targets, but the system was entirely contingent on finding a reliable means of transmitting information. On the eve of World War I (1914-1918) armies relied primarily on wire communications to conduct indirect fire. The war, however, revealed the limitations of utilizing indirect fire when wire communications typically failed on its fire-swept battlefields. For example, in trench warfare (characterized by static, siege warfare methods) imprecise unobserved indirect fire, which relied heavily on massive pre-planned barrages, became an accepted alternative to pre-war observed indirect fire methods that stressed timely and precise fire support with limited ammunition expenditures.

Perfecting observed indirect fire ultimately depended on the development of tactical radios and integrating aerial observation into the process. In the U.S. Army, for example, efficient long-range firepower finally became a reality by 1941, on the eve of America’s entry into World War II. By then, lightweight, reliable, mobile tactical radios provided the key to freeing field artillery forward observers from their reliance on cumbersome wire communications and allowed aerial observation to be readily incorporated into field artillery fire missions.

Did smokeless powder have an impact on infantry methods as well?

The development of smokeless powder in the mid-1880s led to widespread changes for infantry. Smokeless powder provided extended ranges in weapons. The prospects of facing hostile rapid-fire masked artillery and long-range enemy infantry fire meant that traditional close rank infantry formations would vanish from the battlefield. Dispersion of formations and exposure of belligerents for short intervals of time earmarked the dawn of a new age in warfare. No longer could a soldier outfitted in brightly colored apparel to facilitate command and control on a smoke filled battlefield rely on the moral support gained from advancing in close rank formations with his comrades. By the turn of the century, the Boer War (1899-1902) and the Russo Japanese War (1904-1905) demonstrated that modern infantry would need nondescript uniforms that allowed them to blend in with their surroundings. They also would need to be taught to move in wide open formations, which created a new host of command and control problems, and face added pressures to develop self-reliance and perfect discipline if they were to successfully adapt to the new warfare.

Smokeless powder ushered in a new generation of reduced caliber military small arms that reflected some uncertainty in adapting to the new warfare. For example, in 1890 the U.S. Army reduced the caliber of its infantry small arms from .45 to .30, signaling a replacement for the single-shot M1873 Springfield rifle. While other armies began adopting new quick-loading magazine rifles, such as the M1893 7-mm. Mauser used by Spain in the Spanish-American War (1898), the U.S. Army followed a different course with the Norwegian .30 caliber M1892 Krag-Jorgensen rifle that began fielding in 1894 (and was modified in 1896 and in 1898). Although a magazine weapon, it had a magazine cut-off and was intended for use as a
single-shot, with the cartridges in the magazine reserved for emergency use only. The Spanish-American War, however, revealed a serious shortcoming for the Krag compared to Spanish Mausers that could be rapidly loaded with bullets on charger clips. Krags had a magazine that could only be loaded with five loose bullets, which was time consuming and awkward to reload if more than one magazine was needed in emergencies. The Army recognized it needed a better rifle for modern warfare, one comparable to the Mauser that could be charger-loaded, and subsequently replaced the Krag with the .30 caliber M1903 Springfield, based on the Mauser system, as its primary rifle until 1936.

Episode 1 traces the evolution of soldiers and their gear. From the phalanx formations of Alexander the Great to the gladiuses of the Romans and the longbows of the English, the film starts in a world without gunpowder, then examines the transformative arrival of the explosive elixir, and the matchlock and flintlock muskets, rifled
barrels, expanding bullets, automatic weapons, and assault rifles that followed. On the defensive side, we see how personal armor evolved, became outdated, then returned with the arrival of Kevlar and ceramic composites. And looking towards the future, we see the development of wearable exoskeletons that will one day soon make human soldiers stronger and faster, and advanced robotic soldiers that may one day replace them completely.

Episode 2 explores mobility on the battlefield, and the never-ending challenge to maximize effectiveness and find the right balance of protective armor, speed, mobility and firepower. The nimble Egyptian chariots led the way as an effective firing platform. The stirrup and selective breeding turned the horse into a true weapon of war and set the stage for the mounted knight as a self-contained mobile battle-system. And then came the tanks, which evolved from the first British efforts in World War I with boxy Little Willie and hulking Big Willie, to the fast German Panzers and powerful Russian T-34s of World War II, to today’s heavily armed and armored machines like the American Abrams, which comes complete with massive gun, sloping, explosive reactive armor, thermal sights and even stealth coatings.