Was WW1 the worst war to fight in?

[thespanishcel]

Trench warfare was pretty scary tbh and the tactics seem retarded, if it was like the movies with soldiers running like a horde against machine guns, landmines and barbed wire that's like asking for death kek. I think WW1 was much more brootal for the soldier than WW2, except maybe the Pacific and Eastern theatre which were also bad.

I would've hated fighting in the American Civil war too because the guns were more modern and precise but the tactics didn't change so much so I would probably have had a painful death too in there.

 

[SuccessfulShark]

It was brutal asf the guys at the front knew already that they were going to get shot, the hope tho is that it might not be fatal and you could crawl back

 

[Deleted member 29033]

War is how the elites cull incels

 

[Deleted member 31641]

I think an african or south american civil war with modern weaponry would be more brutal tbh, at least in ww1 there where certain rules everyone had to follow and generally both sides took prisoners instead of just excecuting them, but now in 3rd world countries they will use every kind of nastiness to either inflict as much pain or terror on the enemy

 

[Kamikaze]

 

[Emba]

I have shell shock from the war...

The world lost ww2

 

[Subhuman Niceguy]

Yes, trench warfare was very stupid. I can't say any good words about trench warfare, other than Adolf Hitler earned a medal for bravery for his skills in navigating the battlefield.

 

[Deleted member 35748]

Both WW were brutal. WW1 was one massive stalemate and nobody had an idea how to break it so they kept throwing bodies for small and temporary gains, backward thinking and lack of adaptability also played it's role, I don't remember the name of the battle(Could be part of battle of the Frontier), where French were charging with bright uniforms that were standing out from the background, against Germans that were behind the river. They were employing Napoleonic era tactics where in between shots troops advanced in tight formations which was absolutely retarded considering Germans had MG's in that area. Result was the highest casualties ever in just single day reaching 50-90K if I remember correctly.

WW2 was deadly too mainly because of more refined weapons, tactics and even more brutal combat then in WW1. WW1 battles lasted much longer that's why casualties appear much higher. Battle of Stalingrad costed almost 2 million lives. I don't think civilians are included in this number and they were present in city.

 

[Defetivecuckachu]

I'd volunteer for WW1 over fighting Daesh if those were the options.

If you get shot you get shot and its over.

But at least in European society at that time if you were captured you didn't get set om fire in a cage or have your head hacked off by some insane camel or goat fucking sand nigger cunt with a small knife.

 

[ilieknothing]

Ancient wars without the technology we have today would be bad and then you would get hacked to death by a sword.

No war is worth fighting as an incel unless it is a beta uprising against foids and Chads

 

[starcrapoo]

What!! A lot of those guys in WWI died relatively fast compared to the guys who fought in ancient or medieval wars.

Artillery shrapnel, machine gun fire, rifle fire. Those could kill you quick.

Although I must say, the napoleonic wars were quite brutal. Those artillery shells did massive gruesome damage to the wall of men advancing right in front of it.

I believe the way the Duke of Wellington beat Napoleon was loading up their cannons with grape shot and shrapnel at the advancing french imperial guard (Napoleon's trump card). The English opened up at point blank range and those Frenchmen literally got shredded to pieces. I read about the accounts and specifics of that battle (the battle of Waterloo). Sounded pretty gruesome.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDZGL1xsqzs