KimmyJKing Chad
Simple question: What war do you find more interesting, World War 1 or World War 2 and why?
Personally, I find WW1 more interesting and more important. It is a perfect example of old fashioned leadership and dated battle strategy clashing with new age technology. First widespread integration of planes, machine guns of any kind, area denial via mustard gas, tanks, and modernized artillery which was all used alongside old fashioned battle implements like horses and sabers. WW1 also completely changed the map of Europe, set the stage for WW2, rewrote the way battles are fought, put the U.S. & Japan on track to becoming world powers, and phased out "traditional" warfare forever.
Here's just one example of drastic battle strategy changes. The Western front is ridden with tunnels from both sides planning to attack from underground. Hell, there were even tunnels dug under enemy positions that were filled with explosives to kill the enemy from under their feet. That's some Wile E. Coyote shit right there.
44 Replies
shenmoki BANNED
Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis
ReservoirDog
I think WW2 was more interesting. The invention and use of the atomic bomb completely changed how countries displayed their strength, not by sheer numbers of soldiers but by the sheer number of casualties those countries can inflict.
GarrettRainboom
The Civil War, not for the actual war itself but more for the events leading up to it.
Wriastwraith
They are both incredibly interesting but WWII is just a little bit more. Some of the schemes and technology that came out of it were just insane, and that is even excluding the atomic bomb. Just look at the fake army the allies set up for Normandy, or the use if bats as weapons, the V series rockets.
deadshadow foking furry
WW I caused WW II so you can't have one without the other, as for technology goes tanks were first introduced but they were treated like navy ships and you can't do that. i find WW I interesting but i prefer WW II as it was more grand so to speak
Carlsbean BANNED
I'll have to go with WWI. I'm still waiting for a WWI expansion pack for Battlefield like they did with Vietnam...
Redblood801 Chief Dingus
@SpongeyGString: Sit in the trench for 30 minutes in crouch, if you stand up you get shot.
KimmyJ King Chad
@SpongeyGString: Developers can get creative, you know? Not every war game is factual.
KimmyJ King Chad
@SpongeyGString: I'm picturing it being more like a Bad Company type game where you are part of a small squad to get shit done. There is no way any developer would make a game in which you do nothing but sit around. That'd be financial suicide.
natehalodragon
I think WW2 is more interesting. I just like the way America just sort of banned together really grabbed the situation by the balls. It was like the pinnacle of American ingenuity.
Ogrelord_Shrek BANNED
I don't like blacks. Which one had more niggur deaths?
I know about the 92nd Infantry Division and 93rd along with the Tuskegee Airmen (Flying Moon Crickets!?) as the primary units, in WWI and WWII respectively, but which had more dead nig-nogs?
1,647 nig casualties in the 92nd in WWI, and a little over 3,200 in WWII (1944-45)
93rd saw 3,534 casualties in WWI, and I cannot find the casualties of the 93rd Division in WWII.
So fucking close m8.
Deadlyparasite1 BANNED
I liked WWII because many jews died.
You must be signed in to reply.