- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Would you rather have gone “over the top” in WWI or been on the first wave on D-Day?
Posted on 5/23/18 at 4:07 pm to lsudave1
Posted on 5/23/18 at 4:07 pm to lsudave1
D-Day for Utah, Juno, Gold or Sword
WWI over the top
D-Day Omaha
Over the top was miserable with a low chance of success but Omaha was a meat grinder.
Relatively speaking, the other four beaches were reasonably quiet with Utah being the quietest due to blind luck, as they all landed in the wrong place which worked out extremely well.
WWI over the top
D-Day Omaha
Over the top was miserable with a low chance of success but Omaha was a meat grinder.
Relatively speaking, the other four beaches were reasonably quiet with Utah being the quietest due to blind luck, as they all landed in the wrong place which worked out extremely well.
Posted on 5/23/18 at 4:08 pm to lsudave1
D-Day, no question. There is a reason they called the areas between the trenches "No Man's Land". If you set foot in it, you were going to die, period. Withering emplaced and interlocking fields of machine gun fire, snipers, landmines, and artillery zeroed in on No Man's Land made sure of that. No man could hold it. No man could take it. No man could survive it.
D-day was brutal, bloody, and terrifying, but most of the men who landed on the beach, even Omaha, survived. Most of the men who set foot in No Man's Land died.
First wave of D-Day and going over the top of a trench in WW1 is the difference between a pretty good chance of death and certain death.
Another way to put it into context is that you can walk on the beaches of Normandy today with no problem. There are still parts of France that were No Man's Land in WW1 where there are still unexploded shells (chemical and conventional) buried there, there are an absolutely massive number of animal and human remains still strewn about, there are unexploded mines, there is rusty decaying unspent ammo everywhere and the soil is so polluted from the chemicals used that nobody is allowed to build, farm, visit, etc. They STILL pull tons and tons of ordnance out of the ground there every year and we're 100 years down the line. There are places that 99% of all plants still die because of the soil pollution.
That's what you were crossing when you went over the top.
D-day was brutal, bloody, and terrifying, but most of the men who landed on the beach, even Omaha, survived. Most of the men who set foot in No Man's Land died.
First wave of D-Day and going over the top of a trench in WW1 is the difference between a pretty good chance of death and certain death.
Another way to put it into context is that you can walk on the beaches of Normandy today with no problem. There are still parts of France that were No Man's Land in WW1 where there are still unexploded shells (chemical and conventional) buried there, there are an absolutely massive number of animal and human remains still strewn about, there are unexploded mines, there is rusty decaying unspent ammo everywhere and the soil is so polluted from the chemicals used that nobody is allowed to build, farm, visit, etc. They STILL pull tons and tons of ordnance out of the ground there every year and we're 100 years down the line. There are places that 99% of all plants still die because of the soil pollution.
That's what you were crossing when you went over the top.
This post was edited on 5/23/18 at 4:40 pm
Posted on 5/23/18 at 4:08 pm to geauxtigers87
quote:
I feel like yall aren't grasping the question.
Then what is it? Over the top was certain death. Look at the casualty numbers at the Somme or Verdun. D-Day 4,400 people died out of 156,000. I don't see how this is much of a question if you know anything about World War I. Normandy you at least feel like a bad arse and had a pretty good chance at survival. The Somme was pure hell and you knew that your enemies were in the same boat.
This post was edited on 5/23/18 at 4:10 pm
Posted on 5/23/18 at 4:09 pm to geauxtigers87
I’m grasping the question. And I still say I’d rather go in on the first wave of D-Day than go over the top in WWI. Just look at the casualty rates from similar major battles from WWI like the Somme and Verdun compared to D-Day. The casualty rates of those WWI battles were far and away in a whole other scale compared to D-Day.
This post was edited on 5/23/18 at 4:12 pm
Posted on 5/23/18 at 4:14 pm to teke184
quote:
Over the top was miserable with a low chance of success but Omaha was a meat grinder.
But that meat grinder had less than 10,000 casualties. There are multiple venues in WWI that beat that. I'd still pick Omaha since the death would likely be quick, and if it wasn't and I lived long enough, I could feasibly get decent medical treatment and live a long life. No one was going to come in No Man's Land after you if you were shot there though, and your death was certain and slow.
Posted on 5/23/18 at 4:17 pm to Darth_Vader
If you dont choose D-Day you;re an idiot.
It was not uncommon for charges over the top to experience 100% casualty.
its absurd. Add in the gas attacks, artillery shelling, and helllish living conditions...
I'll take Omaha beach first wave over that.
It was not uncommon for charges over the top to experience 100% casualty.
its absurd. Add in the gas attacks, artillery shelling, and helllish living conditions...
I'll take Omaha beach first wave over that.
Posted on 5/23/18 at 4:18 pm to OMLandshark
Plus in WWI they had to contend with gas attacks. That was something WWII soldiers thankfully didn’t have to face.
Posted on 5/23/18 at 4:20 pm to lsudave1
Easy...WW2. No gas, and if you landed at Sword, Juno, or Utah there was little opposition until the hedges.
Posted on 5/23/18 at 4:22 pm to Darth_Vader
Plus the heavy fighting in D-Day was over by sunset. If you were shot or had a limb blown off and just laid low behind a rock and putting pressure on your injuries, the medics weren't all that far behind. That wasn't going to happen in WWI. You were totally fricked.
Posted on 5/23/18 at 4:24 pm to lsudave1
Over the top. Not getting buzzsaw’d by an MG-42
Posted on 5/23/18 at 4:29 pm to Old Money
not to mention that on D-Day you had some hope that you were doing something that would advance the fight. In WWI they were intrenched for years, going nowhere and dying by the tens of thousands with no ground gained.
Posted on 5/23/18 at 4:33 pm to lsudave1
"Over the top" by a long shot. I didn't even know arm wrestling was an option for combat. We should still settle wars this way.
I just realized that "Over The Top" was probably a Rambo sequel.
Did Dan Carlin cover this in Hardcore History?
I just realized that "Over The Top" was probably a Rambo sequel.
Did Dan Carlin cover this in Hardcore History?
Posted on 5/23/18 at 4:42 pm to lsudave1
Living in that trench in those conditions and then hearing the whistle and no you have to sprint to almost certain death after the suffering you had already lived through would be the worst.
At least at D-Day you had lived in much better, dryer quarters away from the battle before the attack.
At least at D-Day you had lived in much better, dryer quarters away from the battle before the attack.
Posted on 5/23/18 at 4:44 pm to Old Money
quote:
Over the top. Not getting buzzsaw’d by an MG-42
That's true. You wouldn't be buzzsawed by an MG-42.
You'd be buzzsawed by an MG-08. That's like 34 worse.
This post was edited on 5/23/18 at 4:54 pm
Posted on 5/23/18 at 4:48 pm to TigerstuckinMS
quote:
You'd be buzzsawed by an MG-08.
And that's at least quick. Dying slowly in No Man's Land on top of the corpses of your fellow men with exploding shells and poison gas around you scare me much more than a quick death, and if you're given a slow one on Normandy, there's still a decent chance of your survival.
Posted on 5/23/18 at 5:03 pm to lsudave1
I'll take getting shot over getting blown up and gassed.
Posted on 5/23/18 at 5:13 pm to lsudave1
D-Day for the following reasons:
1. Medical Advancements. Chances of immediate death notwithstanding, the medical advancements made in the decades between the wars would have increased survival rates for the wounded.
2. Technological advancements also increased survival rates
3. Chemical Warfare in WW1
1. Medical Advancements. Chances of immediate death notwithstanding, the medical advancements made in the decades between the wars would have increased survival rates for the wounded.
2. Technological advancements also increased survival rates
3. Chemical Warfare in WW1
Posted on 5/23/18 at 5:26 pm to TigerstuckinMS
quote:
D-Day, no question. There is a reason they called the areas between the trenches "No Man's Land". If you set foot in it, you were going to die, period. Withering emplaced and interlocking fields of machine gun fire, snipers, landmines, and artillery zeroed in on No Man's Land made sure of that. No man could hold it. No man could take it. No man could survive it.
D-day was brutal, bloody, and terrifying, but most of the men who landed on the beach, even Omaha, survived. Most of the men who set foot in No Man's Land died.
First wave of D-Day and going over the top of a trench in WW1 is the difference between a pretty good chance of death and certain death.
Another way to put it into context is that you can walk on the beaches of Normandy today with no problem. There are still parts of France that were No Man's Land in WW1 where there are still unexploded shells (chemical and conventional) buried there, there are an absolutely massive number of animal and human remains still strewn about, there are unexploded mines, there is rusty decaying unspent ammo everywhere and the soil is so polluted from the chemicals used that nobody is allowed to build, farm, visit, etc. They STILL pull tons and tons of ordnance out of the ground there every year and we're 100 years down the line. There are places that 99% of all plants still die because of the soil pollution.
That's what you were crossing when you went over the top.
Yep. This right here.
Listen to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast on WW1 called "Countdown to Armageddon". I suck at remembering numbers but he talks about the inconceivable number of soldiers that died in trench warfare pushes PER DAY, day after day after day. For MONTHS. It's insane.
And the amount of ordinance fired across the battlefields in crazy. The Germans would do this tactic where they would have hundreds of cannon lay down continuous fire in a line to clear that area. Then on a set time, they would all move their fire forward. The German troops would move up behind the wall of falling ordinance to where the shells had been landing. With precision synchronous timing, something the Germans are known for, they'd walk the rain of death forward, and move their troops in behind it.
The way Dan Carlin describes the hell of trench life will stagger you. The muck was so deep and vile that it was it's own form of weapon. Soldiers that slipped off the duckboards in to the mud would slowly sink to their death. The mud was so foul and so treacherous that when soldiers tried to pull the victim out, they's slip in as get stuck as well. After too many instances of that, they were ordered not to try to pull the guys out.
Carlin reads the letter of a soldier that was headed to the rear from the Front and saw a soldier stuck in the mud. He was pleading for someone to shoot him in the head. The guy had to just walk on past. 2 weeks later on his way back to the front, he passed the body of the guy, mostly submerged in muck now, with a bullet hole in his head. Someone had mercy on him.
frick THAT.
This post was edited on 5/23/18 at 5:29 pm
Posted on 5/23/18 at 6:03 pm to lsudave1
4,400 killed at Normandy, there were battles in WWI that would've had that kind of death toll in a few minutes.
Battle of the Frontiers the French had 27,000 killed in one day.
Battle of the Somme the British had 19,000 killed in one day.
I cannot fathom how bad WWI would have been. Yes, WWII had more deaths but WWI was also 6 years long compared to 4 in WWI and WWII was fought over 3 continents, 4 if you count the attacks on Australia by the Japanese. The scope of the 2nd war was massive.
Battle of the Frontiers the French had 27,000 killed in one day.
Battle of the Somme the British had 19,000 killed in one day.
I cannot fathom how bad WWI would have been. Yes, WWII had more deaths but WWI was also 6 years long compared to 4 in WWI and WWII was fought over 3 continents, 4 if you count the attacks on Australia by the Japanese. The scope of the 2nd war was massive.
Posted on 5/23/18 at 7:11 pm to lsudave1
My dad flew a glider in before 6 am.
82nd airborne. Ill go with that.
If you see the movie Gallipoli, that should cure anyone of ww1 nostalgia.
Turks with machine guns across a plain.
450k British commonwealth.
250k wounded. 37k dead.
Turks defended with similar numbers, 400k. 200k wounded.
Similar dead. After nearly a year of that, the Brits had 105k left and they retreated.
The whole damn war started over coveting ottoman empire pieces. They got them. We are still paying for it.
82nd airborne. Ill go with that.
If you see the movie Gallipoli, that should cure anyone of ww1 nostalgia.
Turks with machine guns across a plain.
450k British commonwealth.
250k wounded. 37k dead.
Turks defended with similar numbers, 400k. 200k wounded.
Similar dead. After nearly a year of that, the Brits had 105k left and they retreated.
The whole damn war started over coveting ottoman empire pieces. They got them. We are still paying for it.
This post was edited on 5/23/18 at 7:16 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News