- 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
What would be the worst war to fight in in history?
Posted on 1/18/20 at 10:01 pm
Posted on 1/18/20 at 10:01 pm
Saw 1917 and it got me thinking... which war would suck the most for a common soldier?
Some potential candidates for hell on earth:
-WW1: It would suck to live in a mud trench and be constantly bombarded. You would probably get sick and have trenchfoot, and would be under constant threat of poison gas. Also, when you went over the top, you were instantly killed, but were shot by your officer if you disobeyed.
-WW2 Eastern Front: It was brutal. Fighting in sub zero temperatures and urban cities, dictators of the countries had no regard for human life. You would be killed if you retreated, but also killed if you were captured. Tons of people got killed in this theater, way way more than any other theater in WW2.
-WW2 Pacific Front: Hot as hell, have to deal with bugs, crocodiles, sharks, heat stroke. Japanese were brutal and took no prisoners. We used flamethrowers on them to flush them out of caves, but they wouldn’t surrender until the whole unit was dead. Absolutely brutal fighting. We also basically burned all of Japan to the ground.
-Vietnam: Fighting in the jungle, relentless enemy who was very well hidden, could massacre you out of nowhere. On the other side of it we used napalm and chemical weapons on the Vietnamese.
-Civil War: Fighting your family in some cases, if you got shot, chances are you would need an amputation and you probably wouldn’t survive that.
-Iran-Iraq War: Basically WW1 with modern weapons and it was fought in a desert.
What wars am I leaving out?
Some potential candidates for hell on earth:
-WW1: It would suck to live in a mud trench and be constantly bombarded. You would probably get sick and have trenchfoot, and would be under constant threat of poison gas. Also, when you went over the top, you were instantly killed, but were shot by your officer if you disobeyed.
-WW2 Eastern Front: It was brutal. Fighting in sub zero temperatures and urban cities, dictators of the countries had no regard for human life. You would be killed if you retreated, but also killed if you were captured. Tons of people got killed in this theater, way way more than any other theater in WW2.
-WW2 Pacific Front: Hot as hell, have to deal with bugs, crocodiles, sharks, heat stroke. Japanese were brutal and took no prisoners. We used flamethrowers on them to flush them out of caves, but they wouldn’t surrender until the whole unit was dead. Absolutely brutal fighting. We also basically burned all of Japan to the ground.
-Vietnam: Fighting in the jungle, relentless enemy who was very well hidden, could massacre you out of nowhere. On the other side of it we used napalm and chemical weapons on the Vietnamese.
-Civil War: Fighting your family in some cases, if you got shot, chances are you would need an amputation and you probably wouldn’t survive that.
-Iran-Iraq War: Basically WW1 with modern weapons and it was fought in a desert.
What wars am I leaving out?
This post was edited on 1/18/20 at 10:07 pm
76
Posted on 1/18/20 at 10:04 pm to red sox fan 13
Worst war - WWI
Tactics had not caught up with hardware.
Worst battle - being a confederate soldier at Gettysburg 6,000 dead in less than 50 minutes on the 3rd day.
Screw all that
Tactics had not caught up with hardware.
Worst battle - being a confederate soldier at Gettysburg 6,000 dead in less than 50 minutes on the 3rd day.
Screw all that
This post was edited on 1/18/20 at 10:05 pm
Posted on 1/18/20 at 10:06 pm to red sox fan 13
Valley Forge probably sucked.
Posted on 1/18/20 at 10:06 pm to red sox fan 13
All of those sound more palatable than that medieval shite.
I mean I'd rather get shot than end up on a pike.
I mean I'd rather get shot than end up on a pike.
Posted on 1/18/20 at 10:07 pm to red sox fan 13
Probably WWI. And any of the big battles would be awful considering the good odds of having to charge a machine gun. Passchendaele might be the worst.
Posted on 1/18/20 at 10:09 pm to red sox fan 13
Grenada
Posted on 1/18/20 at 10:10 pm to Huey Lewis
WW1 and it’s not even close.
Posted on 1/18/20 at 10:10 pm to red sox fan 13
To go more obscure, I’ll say the 3rd Crusade/Siege of Acre. Basically trench war for 3 years that left 40 thousand men dead. In the middle eastern heat. In heavy chain mail. With Middle Ages medicine.
Posted on 1/18/20 at 10:12 pm to red sox fan 13
All of them.
Posted on 1/18/20 at 10:18 pm to BuckyCheese
quote:
All of those sound more palatable than that medieval shite.
I mean I'd rather get shot than end up on a pike.
I don't think most people can process what it would be like to fight in a jungle in Vietnam in the 1960's.
Thinking they could relate to a bunch of dirty, starving, toothless peasants hacking each other to pieces in the mud with swords and axes with no medical support or wagons to haul them off is just way beyond the reasoning of nearly anyone.
Any battlefield is terrible, but we value human life in a much more advanced way than civilization did in previous centuries and our methods of warfare reflect that. Life was much harder in every facet back then and its easy to forget how far we've come.
Posted on 1/18/20 at 10:22 pm to red sox fan 13
Fort Vaux. The French garrison were licking slime off of the walls for water because they ran out when German artillery cracked open the water cistern.
French surrendered the Fort after a while with no water. Such pussies. Always surrendering. I'm sure that there was more slime to lick off of the walls. Why surrender when you can lick slime off of the walls?
"Sir, the men wish to surrender because they are dying of thirst."
"I presume that all of the slime has been licked off of the walls?"
"No, Sir. There's still more slime, but, we'd like to surrender anyways."
French surrendered the Fort after a while with no water. Such pussies. Always surrendering. I'm sure that there was more slime to lick off of the walls. Why surrender when you can lick slime off of the walls?
"Sir, the men wish to surrender because they are dying of thirst."
"I presume that all of the slime has been licked off of the walls?"
"No, Sir. There's still more slime, but, we'd like to surrender anyways."
Posted on 1/18/20 at 10:25 pm to tide06
quote:
we value human life in a much more advanced way than civilization did in previous centuries and our methods of warfare reflect that
I don’t know. Our methods of warfare have made killing more efficient. If getting shot or blown up is more humane than being stabbed or slashed, it’s not for any altruistic purpose.
Pre gunpowder battles could be brutal but I don’t think they were generally as bad as WWI. The battles were smaller scale and with proper armor the chances of surviving were pretty good. Of course some battles like Cannae were complete bloodbaths but I don’t know how to compare being slaughtered in Cannae versus charging a machine gun at Somme.
Posted on 1/18/20 at 10:31 pm to red sox fan 13
“-WW1: It would suck to live in a mud trench and be constantly bombarded. You would probably get sick and have trenchfoot, and would be under constant threat of poison gas. Also, when you went over the top, you were instantly killed, but were shot by your officer if you disobeyed.”
Read All Quiet on the Western Front. Great book I read every few years.
‘-WW2 Pacific Front: Hot as hell, have to deal with bugs, crocodiles, sharks, heat stroke. Japanese were brutal and took no prisoners. We used flamethrowers on them to flush them out of caves, but they wouldn’t surrender until the whole unit was dead. Absolutely brutal fighting. We also basically burned all of Japan to the ground. “
Father did that and had 6 big bullet holes in him. Was on a troop transport in harbor around Manila ready for the invasion of Japan when they dropped the bombs. Had a few drinks every year on August 6 and 9 to honor Fat Man and Little Boy.
That was his worst war to fight.
Read All Quiet on the Western Front. Great book I read every few years.
‘-WW2 Pacific Front: Hot as hell, have to deal with bugs, crocodiles, sharks, heat stroke. Japanese were brutal and took no prisoners. We used flamethrowers on them to flush them out of caves, but they wouldn’t surrender until the whole unit was dead. Absolutely brutal fighting. We also basically burned all of Japan to the ground. “
Father did that and had 6 big bullet holes in him. Was on a troop transport in harbor around Manila ready for the invasion of Japan when they dropped the bombs. Had a few drinks every year on August 6 and 9 to honor Fat Man and Little Boy.
That was his worst war to fight.
Posted on 1/18/20 at 10:35 pm to red sox fan 13
Not really a “war”, but native Americans vs Spanish conquistadors.
Imagine being a native warrior having to witness horses for first time and steel weaponady, not to mention diseases which your immune system has to response for
Imagine being a native warrior having to witness horses for first time and steel weaponady, not to mention diseases which your immune system has to response for
Posted on 1/18/20 at 10:39 pm to Martini
I would have to say Vietnam because of the mental stress. Those other wars listed we had clear goals and they were fighting for their country. Vietnam had so many issues back home and on the battlefield, was like nobody knew what the hell we were really there for. I guess what I mean is for example, when WW2 soldiers came home it was a hero’s welcome. My Uncle returned from Vietnam and was spit on. Mental status in a war zone has the ability to crush you.
This post was edited on 1/18/20 at 10:41 pm
Posted on 1/18/20 at 10:39 pm to GeneralLee
quote:
WW1 and it’s not even close.
The "not even close" arguments are worser than the wars.
You have any context for your argument, you dink? Bring it.
(Hey, Chicken, get off your arse and get a "bring it" emoticon) I'll split the copyright.
Posted on 1/18/20 at 10:41 pm to red sox fan 13
The Athenian invasion of Sicily.
Posted on 1/18/20 at 10:42 pm to red sox fan 13
Would rather fight in any of those wars than be the gentlemen on the right side.
Posted on 1/18/20 at 10:43 pm to Taurus
quote:
The "not even close" arguments are worser than the wars.
No kidding. It’s tiresome.
Posted on 1/18/20 at 10:43 pm to bott18240
Yeah, I think we should have not fought in Vietnam, in the end it was pointless. But it’s awful the way people treated veterans like your uncle. Many did not want to be there and they were forced to fight, and were treated like shite when they came home. People should have focused the hate on the president and congressmen, not the young men carrying out orders they didn’t want to do in the first place.
Page 1 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News