What war or era of warfare would you least like fighting in?
For me it would be medieval warfare followed by World War I trench warfare
pls respond
>>59989
Line warfare. Objectively the best balance between infantry, cavalry, and artillery in history.
>tfw you will never learn how to reload your flintlock musket in under 20 seconds
>tfw you will never charge an artillery emplacement and spike the guns
>>59989
CQC like in stalingrad, leningrad , okinawa and Iwo jima plus afew italian cities during WW2
ww1 is also horrible, more horrible when your lead by a french/british officer so stuck up he decides to do a forward march into a machinegun
Naval warfare with pirates sounds scary because they can keep you captive easily
Technically, you are fucked in any kind of war, no matter of its specifics.
The further into the future, the higher are your chances of dying in the battle tho - so I'd say WW2 eastern front. Neither Soviets, nor Germans followed the war conventions.
WW1
Vietnam
Colonial era ship combat. It sucked balls when you weren't fighting, and it sucked extra balls when you were.
>>59989
literally every single war sucked for the guys fighting in it.
But if I had to choose, 3rd Punic War as a Carthagininan would suck big donkey dick.
WW1 cause Gallipoli would fuck my shit up so bad.
>>59989
The Winter War, as a Russian.
WW2 rather obviously.
Followed by WW1 also rather obviously.
Some of the crazy chinese wars and 30yearswar come to mind next.
On the other hand something early medieval sounds rather safe-ish. Still rather ritualized, very small in scope.
>>60242
This
>>60864
Oh no, I read the OP wrong. Line Warfare would be the one I would MOST like to participate in. When it comes to the i would least like to fight in, it would have to be the Syrian Civil War fighting for the Kurds.
![lee281[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/cFVJEim.jpg "lee281[1].jpg")
Iran-Iraq War
>fanatical child soldiers everywhere
>wading through electrified marshes filled with mines and barbed wire while being hunted by attack helicopters
>mustard gas
>trench warfare and human waves
>have your charred corpse displayed on tv to cheering fanaticists
Read about this battle in particular, it's horrifying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Marshes
I would say WWI
>Live in a muddy, rainy hole in the ground
>Commander gives less then a tenth of a shit about your life, and has no idea what he's doing
>Rats everywhere, grow to huge sizes
>Bugs everywhere
>Shitty shoes
>Medical technology is backwards compared to weapons technology
>Any offensive action your side takes results in several people you know dying
>Victories uniformly result in losing your side's gains soon after
>Their bodies probably lay very close to you for weeks after the battle, rotting
>Disease
>Cold
>Artillery could just kill you at any time
>Poison gas attacks
>If you were in a plane, it was poorly insulated to the point of being dangerous
>If you were in a tank, you were literally being cooked alive during normal operations
>Minimal accommodations for hygiene
>Brief respite from the war during Christmas 1914 only serving to remind you that literally no one on the ground wanted to participate, but had to anyway
Submarine warfare must have sucked very badly.
At least you had the possibility to go out smoke a cigarette and give yourself the bullet if it was unbearable in a trench.
In a submarine there is simply no hope of escape, you don't know when death is coming, and there is no Chance you'll die in a lazareth in the arms of a Nurse waifu while being high on heroine
>>62556
Unexpected death is a feature of any war. It's probably comparitively quick and painless in Submarine warfare, or at least no worse than any kind of surface ship warfare.
In submarine warfare, there's about zero chance you have to subsist within 10 meters of a couple dozen rotting compatriots and festering human/horse feces for multiple months.
>>59989
the next one
>>60359
not as bad as Hollywood wants it too look like. It is just such a big deal because it happened to coincidence with the hippie-peace movement
Submarine warfare must have sucked very badly.
At least you had the possibility to go out smoke a cigarette and give yourself the bullet if it was unbearable in a trench.
In a submarine there is simply no hope of escape, you don't know when death is coming, and there is no Chance you'll die in a lazareth in the arms of a Nurse waifu while being high on heroine
>>62595
Well we never hear about These cases. But I'm pretty sure there were several cases of submarines getting trapped, on the ground of the sea because the engines have been damaged.
Or the submarine leaks and you have some air left in a bubble.
Imagine the Panic and despair, knowing that you are hundreds of metres under the Surface, stuck in total darkness with other People around you panicking just as much, freezing, no Chance of suicide, and slowly suffocate.
>>62021
Fuck me, that's brutal.
WW1
Fuck that mustard gas, giant ass rats, and wet feet shit man
Also, fuck sitting around dead people in a hole.
>>60337
>The further into the future, the higher are your chances of dying in the battle tho
Are you kidding. Combat casualties are doing nothing but going consistently down.
WW1. All that sitting arround in trenches, constantly cold and wet waiting to be shot by a sniper or for the call to go over the top.
>>60856
I'll see you there. Through my crosshairs.
>>62757
most WWI casulties on the western front were inflicted to artillery. Guess it doesn't make it better
Not counting world wars, I would say either the Iran Iraq war or the Yugoslav wars
>>62753
Not to mention people don't die of plague and the elements just sitting in tents before the fight even begins anymore.
>>60242
>Line warfare
Holy shit this.
Which retard came up with the idea of line warfare anyway?
>>63009
Muskets were no acurrate at more of 50 meters
Create a barrage of them and can kill a whole army front line
>>59989
Mongolian conquest of the Jin Dynasty
>Be Chinese nobleman living in Zhongdu (Beijing)
>Beautiful city, pinnacle of the world
>Enjoy drinking tea, chilling in chi gardens and wearing silk undergarments
>Hear news of barbarians on horseback in the North killing entire populations and defeating the heavenly emperors armies
>Eventually Genghis reaches the city
>Beseiged for years, thousands of young women commit suicide by throwing themselves off the ramparts
>Many resort to cannibalism duo to starvation
>The fact that you know that not only will you die if you lose, but your entire way of life and all civilisation will fall to barbarians
>There is no hope for humanity
Honestly I cant imagine anything worse than being a citizen in a civilized society which is going to fall to savages. The same sort of feeling I would have during the seiges of Byzantium of the fall of Rome
I think it's more important to specify which Battle you'd least like to be involved in seeing as how any given war is fought in a variety of urban and rural fields.
but in general, WWI simply because the video of the bombings above the trenches looks like some fucked up fireworks display, the thought of a trench caving in while waiting for the bombs to stop falling or chemicals or a charge by the enemy seems too terrifying to risk it.
>>59989
Definitely WWI. At least in other eras, there was at least someone competent somewhere.
But here, you're with soldiers who don't know what they're doing being commanded by officers who don't know what they're doing. How anyone actually survived that war, I don't know. And living in the trenches is not a nice place to be for years either.
>>63282
But didn't you hear? Genghis was actually this great humanitarian who allowed freedom of religion!
>le john green faec
The Crimean war was for the most part the worst of trench warfare coupled with even more backwards medical technology. Something like 20% of the Anglo-French force died of disease. And all that for preventing the Turkstink empire from collapsing. On the off chance that a military action didn't involve sitting in a mud trench for three months sieging fucking Sebastepol your dumbass calvary commander would have you charge aimlessly over the whole length of a battlefields straight into fifty or so Russian guns.
>>63372
Oh god I'm watching the video now, this guy needs to fuck off. The Mongols were barbarians, man this is making me rage.
>>63372
Are you Asian, by any chance?
>>62753
Isn't it basically that if you can get a wounded soldier to a medical tent or hospital or just get out the battlefield he's pretty much guaranteed to make it even with the most severe injury?
>>63502
Nope
>>60293
>french/british officer so stuck up he decides to do a forward march into a machinegun
Everybody did that, the Americans disastrously so on the very last day of the war to try and pinch some last minute glory knowing full well of the ceasefire at 11am.
>>63122
iirc there were specialized rifles for light infantry and sharpshooters that were more accurate
Any war with trenches.
Any war with shelling.
Any war with chemical or biological weapons.
Basically WW1.
DESU I'd hate to be part of any war, I neither wish to die nor cause death for others.
>>59989
Pretty much any colonial "war" as an native. Cause you got fucked up so bad by these futuristic dicks with guns and horses while you chuck spears
WWI or line warfare. How are you even supposed to survive in line warfare? Just pray your enemy will miss you?
>>63372
Well he was, doesnt balance out the rape and murder though, i could be wrong but i think tengrism (which ghengis followed) saw partial legitimacy in all religion and preached religious tolerance, it wasnt cause he wasa nice guy...
>>59989
Crusades
>Walk all the way over Europe or sit in a squabbly dirty ship with disease-ridden people sleeping right next to you, and having to eat raw rats and drink your own piss to survive for 6 months.
>if you somehow got to the holy lands, it was absolutely not how you imagined it.
>lucky if you actually got to do a little fighting
>usually slept on the streets, no barracks, no field rations, 100% on your own in a place you've only heard about from a few poorly translated quotes you've heard about 3 or 4 times in your life.
>thirsting to death in a climate you've never even heard of.
>sucked in fighting, and usually got impaled if you actually were to fight a battle once in a while.
But hey-ho, you got to heaven afterwards tho, so maybe it wasn't 'that' bad.
>>63818
Luck + discipline. Most casualties come when one side retreats and the other side sends in the cavalry. Ìf you have good discipline, reload fast, aim good, keep close ranks and don't panic, you have a pretty good chance.
>>59989
WW1, most definitly
Sure WW2 had more dead, but soldiers living conditions were better, yes, even at Stalingrad
Nothing compares to spending months in muddy trenches littered with rotting human remains
>>64920
you are now aware that, for example, british soldiers spent five (5) days a month on average in the trenches
do not fall for the silly ww1 myths
>>64943
>british
>world war
It's almost like there was more than one side participating.
>>63818
Line warfare wasn't just standing a few meters away from enemy and shooting in turn
It often devolved into close combat shitfest after one side charged (at least during Napoleonic Era, I'm not quite sure about 18th century)
>>59989
definitely ww1
cause i mean charging into machine gun fire across a muddy field sounds like a stupid way to die
Now anons please riddle me you are forced to figth in a war
what era do you choose
You will be trained and part of middle tier proffesional troops i.e not levied troops but still not part of a elite force
For me roman times figthing for the S.P.Q.R
why because building bridges and roads and mabey sometimes figthing a rabble trying to rise against the roman empire dosent sound to bad
also muh legions
>yes i know pic related are not legionaries
>>64943
Found the britbong.
>>63818
You weren't supposed to be standing against a single other line for an extended amount of time. If you had the upper hand then you would have cavalry and artillery supporting you. If you were on the other end of that then your line would break or retreat quickly. So casualties were minimized.
>>65082
the french had a rotation system as well - not as sophisticated as the british one in the beginning, but closely resembling it after the mutinies in 1917 - in fact it was the germans who had it worst, there are even french accounts feeling sorry for the german soldiers in this regard (but at the same time the germans had somewhat better living conditions in their trenches)
>>65233
In the war overall the Austro-Hungarians had it worst, especially in late 1914 and early 1915. There was virtually no troop rotation and they were made to fight offensively in freezing mountain environments against masses of Russians.
>>60337
>>62753
I assume he meant, that the individual skill no longer matters, only technology, and most stuff today can kill you very easy. True, back in the medieval age you wouldn't die instantly most of the time, rather from blood loss or infections, but now its either you survive the first blow and get out or die from it.
>>62492
>>Brief respite from the war during Christmas 1914 only serving to remind you that literally no one on the ground wanted to participate, but had to anyway
you will never disobey orders from the top and go play a friendly game of soccer with the "evil germans" during an unofficial cease fire
>>65741
>Viking from Normandie
No such thing
The vikings that settled in Normandy originated in Denmark, so they werent "from Normandy"
And by the time they moved from Normandy to invade another place (1066), they were no longer vikings but mere Frenchmen
>>65157
Artillery NCO, Napoleonic wars
WW1 for sure
>spend months living in rat infested shit filled trenches
>artillery bombardment all the time
>poison gas
>when your commanders send you over the top you have a very small chance of surviving if at all
>>59989
World War 1.
18th century naval warfare must've been fucking awful. Splinters, lack of medical technology, sea being also against you etc. Get wounded in the sea and you're done for.
WW1 is obvious choice too.
ww2 as russians
>shit quality clothes in freezing winter
>nugget that hasnt been cleaned for 40 years
>crappy commander
>friend of yours have probably died in purge
>after war all you get is a shitty piece of iron
>>59989
>WWI because it was so gruesome and nasty.
>Late Antiquity where you can still see the person you are killing, but warfare has the first real mass casualty producing weapons.
>Early Modern warfare was supposedly an absolute gorefest if one or both generals were stupid. So the 30 years war probably looking like a post-apocalyptic wasteland by the end.
>anything involving Mongols
>>59989
>What war or era of warfare would you least like fighting in?
1. Any and all naval warfare.
Subs like other have mentioned would suck since you can't really jump overboard when you're 100m under water and your sub is taking on water so have fun sitting and waiting for death.
Surface ships would suck almost as bad. Assuming you survive the attack that cripples your ship and the ship doesn't explode you then have to hop there's a lifeboat or some floating thing you can hangout on. Then you have to hope you're not in the north atlantic where you'd have to worry about hypothermia. Now you have to wonder if the enemy is going to shoot you, leave you to die or take you as a POW. Maybe you'll get lucky and a friendly ship will rescue you.
2. US Civil War, more likely to die from an infection or disease than an actual bullet. "Doctors" with hack saws working on people with no anesthesia.
>>66318
At least you might get the chance to liberate Germany.
>>62021
same
>>66353
ill be probably sent to fight japs
>>65157
If you are a noble?
Medieval. Your armor will protect you from most shit and your chances of death are actually kinda small. More than likely you will be ransomed off.
Peasant or commoner?
Pax Romana as a legionnaire. If you are lucky, you get to be in the campaigns against the Britons and Germans, those eventually end. If you are stuck with the Parthians, well shit. sucks to suck in the desert sun
>>66318
Actually russian uniforms (vatniks) are pretty comfy and warm.
>>66245
Naval combat from any era seems absolutely miserable.
Fuck, imagine being on a Greek or roman trireme. People in this thread have said dying a sudden, unexpected death wouldn't be too bad, but I dunno, since I've never tried it. But even before dying it seems miserable. Probably a slave, don't know how to swim. Cramped space, backbreaking rowing. Hope you ram before getting rammed, hope if boarded the 10-20 marines up top can do their job.
>mfw reading A memory from solferino
PTSD : the book
>>59989
16th/17th century fights were fucking brutal
At least in ww1 you'd die relatively quickly apart from gas
>>66887
Gas wasn't such a huge threat really. It's a gruesome way to die, but It wasn't too prevalent and it didn't change warfare that much.
>>65589
>soccer
Americlaps weren't even there in 1914
>>66940
Gas often didn't kill victims, but blinded and deformed them. Those only slightly exposed to chlorine would eventually recover their eyesight.
>>66887
>At least in ww1 you'd die relatively quickly apart from gas
Apart from gas, artillery non-lethal wounds, bullet non-lethal wounds, diseases caused by water being infected by rotten corpses, diseases caused by rats...etc
>>65157
A legionary sounds nice. Relatively decent pay and retirement bonuses, most of your time spent just building shit, and you'll look cool as fuck doing it. Well, as long as you don't fuck up, anyway.
>>67097
Non-lethal wounds were, well, non-lethal
>>67233
Yeah, I meant not instantly lethal wounds
All war is horrible beyond imagination in its own way but if I have to choose, I would take pike and shot warfare and WW1 as my least favorite choices. Any of you guys read A Storm of Steel by Ernst Jünger?
>>59989
Any conflict where nerve gas was used, that shit is terrifying.
>>59989
Out of all types of warfare from the past 2000 years I'd probably pick High/Late medieval warfare as least horrible.
Most horrible is probably WWI trench fighting and Landsknecht era shit.
>The concentration of so much fighting in such a small area devastated the land, resulting in miserable conditions for troops on both sides. Rain combined with the constant tearing up of the ground turned the clay of the area to a wasteland of mud full of human remains. Shell craters became filled with a liquid ooze, becoming so slippery that troops who fell into them or took cover in them could drown. Forests were reduced to tangled piles of wood by constant artillery-fire and eventually obliterated.[89]
>Many troops at the battle never saw an enemy soldier, experiencing nothing but artillery fire. Troops on both sides called Verdun "Hell".
>A French lieutenant at Verdun who was later killed by a shell, wrote in his diary on 23 May 1916, "Humanity is mad. It must be mad to do what it is doing. What a massacre! What scenes of horror and carnage! I cannot find words to translate my impressions. Hell cannot be so terrible. Men are mad!"[112]
The Western front of WW1 was probably the worst kind of warfare ever
>>62492
>Medical technology is backwards compared to weapons technology
Actually it wasn't though.
Something like 95% of troops who reached an aid station to see a doctor survived. It was the getting to an aid station that was the hard part.
>>59989
>What war or era of warfare would you least like fighting in?
The one I die in.
>>62021
Lord of the Rings?
Definitely WWI, specifically Passchendaele.
Mud that will literally swallow you alive, on top of the gas, artillery, snipers, and machine guns.
There is a reason it scarred the British Army for a generation.
>>63915
He was just a pagan. Pagan religions don't work like abrahamic ones. The existance of Tengri doesn't deny the other religions so you just don't care about them.
>>67537
>specifically Passchendaele.
Verdun and the Somme were notably worse
But muh special Canadian snowflake, right?
>>63009
>I know better than the most brilliant military tacticians of the time
No. Fuck off with this line of reasoning. It was the most effective way to use the tools of the era.
>>65233
>french had a rotation system as well - not as sophisticated as the british
>brits. They always have to mention assumed superiority when referring to French, even if it's about a fucking Rotation system
>>67687
Verdun maybe, it is not my area of expertise.
Not the Somme though.
I am well read on the British and Canadian experiences on the Western Front and Passchendaele stands out as the single worst experience.
>>67768
Remember that the firearms were quite slow to load and melee engagements were common. Having your lads spread way out to avoid gunfire is an assured way to have them routed if charged by infantry or cavalry.
>>67817
makes sense
>>62492
>>Commander gives less then a tenth of a shit about your life, and has no idea what he's doing
not for me
>>67290
Any war where you could get something sharp in your gullet.
I've read a little one WW1 and yes, the average soldier was basically cannon fodder. And yes, even then I could get a spade to the face by any one side... but recently i've been reading the book "Enemy at the Gates" which covers the battle of Stalingrad.
Holy fuck, brehs.
>Watching germans rip babies in half
>Watching russians slaughter whole squads of surrendered germans
>Fight with shovels and knives for every floor
>Sleep in the basement, in below freezing temperatures, while the enemy is literally right above you on the next floor.
>one story: German sgt. loses most of squad.
>ask for reinforcements.
>gets 7 new recruits from the fatherland at 6am.
>by 10 am only 2 left because of Ivans snipers.
>cannibalism
>one soviet uses fingers to gouge out a germans eyes when assaulting a factory.
>is shoveled to death by 3 other nazis.
no thanks.
>>67768
Yeah, I'll just pop next door and ask Napoleon, I'm sure he'll confirm it for you
>>68694
>it's ridicoulous to think that anybody on the Internet happens to know why line warfare was a Thing during over 2 centuries
It's not like there were Military academies and and Generals writing this shit down
>>59989
vietnam, civil war on the north side, ww2 on allies, ww1 on allies.
Any war defending a non racially pure state.
>>68780
It would still be a matter of their opinion, not one based on experience. I think your first explanation works nicely but asking it to be confirmed is just silly
>>67194
You could skip participating in most of the parthian wars btw
>>67290
source?
>>68940
I was just asking about someone who was educated on that matter, since i was merely speculating, and have no idea of 18th century warfare.
>>63372
kek kek
WWI by a mile.
>>67768
if your weapons are good and your men are trained you MIGHT be able to hit 75 meter targets. Best thing to do is stack them in lines and mass their fire. This also prevents cav charges which could easily break unarmored formations in the right conditions.
And then most of the time you only use your muskets to whittle the enemy down. You drive him from the field with a bayonet
>>66329
>30-years-war
Shit, it was literally the 3-kingdom-wars (China) in small, which means absolutely horrifying
>>66162
>that scene
Fuck it, I didn't want to remember this.
>>69098
I don't know, it gets posted over in the Total War general sometimes.
Why do people go on about WW1?
WW1 while obviously brutal didn't have the constant, unavoidable death traps that were Stalingrad and Leningrad on the Eastern Front. You weren't in a trench filled with shit and death the whole time, you'd get time off, you'd get out of the trench back to relative safety and comfort. Good luck finding that in a surrounded Stalingrad.
World War 1 or being russian in WW2.
Fuck trenches.
Seriously fuck Soviet struggles in WW2 like fucking Stalingrad and the other -grads
>>73021
Something about spending a significant amount of time in an open grave/sewer I guess. Descriptions of the Western Front have always struck me as being as close to living hell as is possible.
That being said, rather be there then anywhere on the Eastern Front during ww2.
I don't know about worst, since there are no good wars, other than the revolutionary war, the world wars, and the Star Wars.
>>73408
and the Junkyard Wars
>>63915
They reasoned it by something like that people who don't live in steppes can't really understand and align with tengrism
>>66075
Enjoy retiring with in worse case no hearing, in better case EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>73408
>no good wars
Do you want to see a guillotine in Piccadilly!?
Want to call that raggedy-arse Napoleon your king!?
You want your children to sing the "La Marseillaise!?"
Trench Warfare sounds absolutely fucking awful. Literal meat grinders they just dumped people in for a net gain of no territory, all because of a convoluted chain of alliances and treaties that dragged in people who had nothing to do with the original conflict.
On the other hand, being an officer on a ship of the line during the age of sail would be OK with me.
>>74607
Why do people always call it convoluted web? It's just three countries allied, one of which is protecting a genetic relative and two other countries defending each other in response to that three country alliance
>>75154
The telegrams that went back and forth. The troop build ups in reaction to troop build ups, the Colonial tensions between the powers in Africa.
After all of that, the major theater of the war becomes the western front involving Germany, France, and England fighting a war that was started by the Serbs assassinating the arch duke of another country that fell apart because of all these shenanigans.
WWI is a comedy of fucking errors.
>>67768
More or less. You have a body of soldiers and you don't want your opponent to move through your soldiers. What are your options?
>idk whatever lol
Your soldiers form haphazard clumps that get destroyed by organized formations
>fan out
The enemy literally walks through you and your army does not matter
>make a block
The enemy makes a longer block and encircles you
>make a line
You get taught as an example of how stupid people were before the atom bomb, but hey you put up a good fight
Modern predicted conventional warfare. If a major power fights another in total war that would suck real balls. All kinds of nasty shit.
Any Indian Euro war. No medicine weapons are not even same gen. Even if you win Euro dirty dick disease will get you.
Third Punic War
WWI trench warfare was by far the absolute worst. It sounds like literal hell on earth. I can't even begin to imagine the horror.
Medieval fighting may have been messy and brutal, but the battles were quick, and even getting gutted by a sword can't compare to the horrors inflicted by modern artillery.
I legitimately can't think of a single worse war to be a front-line soldier in than WWI.
>>73452
And scrap yard wars
>>63009
Leftover tactics from pre-firearm era.
Muskets are very inaccurate, a lot of them pointed at one target will fuck it up tho.
You march in formation, helps the illiterate conscripts know which way to go.
Easier for generals to create plans when they imagine lines/blocks of troops like all of those battle maps
Any war from the 1800s
>>67768
>>63009
Line warfare is shock warfare. Imagine yourself a soldier in the year 1670. You're looking across at the enemies line. Guess what is hiding behind that line? Surprise, 1000 horsemen who are ready to hack you with their sabre. Guess what's stopping them from charging immediately? Your line.
In American football, the offensive linemen stop the defensive linebackers from charging the quarterback. It's the same philosophy in line warfare.
As soon as your line breaks, the enemy cavalry charges to clean you up. By clean you up, I mean stab you in the back.
Pic related. Would you rather see a line, or this charging at you?
>ctrl f Pacific
>0 results
Island hopping in the middle of the butt fuck Pacific on piece of shit islands infested with parasites, disease, viruses, hideous insects and poisonous reptiles while at the same time trudging through a muddy jungle filled with IEDs, mines, hiding fanatical retards who will usually fight to the death in the blistering sun all fucking day and night?
Fuck that.
