/k/ - Weapons

There is only so much a human's mind can take. I'm sure every war has had some moment that would cause anyone to loose it. It really depends on the person.

For me personally, the most traumatic is knowing you are the only one protecting your family and everything you hold true but also knowing you will eventually loose i.e. Seige of Constantinople, Battle of Berlin, Fall of Rhodesia

Overall: WWII

True hell: Japanese side from WWII

>>587608

I think by definition there isn't such a thing as a war that isn't somewhat traumatic to fight in assuming you're actually, you know. Fighting.

WW1 is arguably the worst.

Technological growing pains, commanders adapting to new styles of combat, an extreme shortage of soldiers at any given time, Germany being so poor during the war their citizens were as well fed as the prisoners they took, soldiers unable to be pulled from muddy shell craters and drowning overnight, the constant fear of getting shot if you stood too tall or getting raided at night, etc. etc.

If you read accounts from the war, that shit is pretty grim and nobody was prepared going into it.

>>587621

OP was thinking more of the worst time for warfare rather than "is war traumatic".

Doesn't matter what shit you see. If you have seen shit, it's going to stick with you.

>>587623

I will never understand WWI. I don't know if anyone who took part in it even understands it. WWII makes sense because at least the staggering death tolls were dispersed across the entire planet and were mostly the result of units trapped between a rock and a hard place or the deliberate massacre of civilians.

But what can explain something like the Somme, where Britain squandered over 60,000 soldiers in one place, in one day, in a single mass attack, and then immediately tried it again, and again and again and again? How is it that military leadership in the 1910's could stomach a waste of life on this magnitude when in almost any other time in history it would be unthinkable to sacrifice 60,000 or even 10,000 men all at once?

>>587608

>I've heard people say everything from the Roman

I'm fairly sure there is nothing in the ancient literature referring to "shellshock" or "ptsd".

Back then they weren't getting mutilated by artillery shells either…

>>587639

Back then men weren't absolute pussies either.

>>587623

>>587638

No wonder they really thought that was "the war to end all wars".

>>587639

not true, i know this is a dailymail article but it lists plenty of examples of ancient soldiers getting ptsd like symptoms http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2923799/Did-ancient-warriors-suffer-PTSD-Texts-reveal-battles-3-000-years-ago-left-soldiers-traumatised-saw.html

>>587608

WW1.

Prior to Verdun battle neither side had figure out you needed to ROTATE troops regularly (which is what Petain invented).

They just sent regiments someplace, let them there, fill them with new bodies. People were medically discharged and that was it.

>>587668

This.

Retards claiming that it was WWI have never read on medieval sieges or mass slaughter. The closest thing to true traumatic experience in a modern war is fighting as a Jap on Iwo Jima. And even that is debatable.

>>587670

>>587668

WWI was a medieval siege the size of a country.

What?

Did you think they buried people that fell in no man's land? That they didn't starve? That they weren't eaten alive by rats when they fell asleep? That they didn't spent months in their own shit and getting regularly sprayed by cadaver juice every time the artillery would pummel the line?

>>587671

Uh oh guys, we made this strelok mad somehow for some reason that he won't specify because he's too busy thinking about dicks!

>>587697

Is that child smoking a cig?

>>587699

I think it's some kind of lollypop or candy or maybe a whistle. Too thick to be a cigarette.

>>587674

I was thinking that all of those things apply to medieval sieges aside from the intensity of cadaver spraying from more powerful artillery. Who knows though. Maybe people die just as messily when hit with corpses too.

>>587674

I'd rather be stuck in a muddy trench and die from shrapnel in the face than be stuck for years in a rotting city under siege where half the population that I was meant to protect dies of starvation and disease and we eat the bodies because we have absolutely nothing else left. Meanwhile the enemy launches random attacks on the walls to stop us from getting even a few hours of rest and in the night cooks food and sings to make us feel even more miserable and hopeless.

Then once the enemy does break into the city, moments before I die I know for a fact that the enemy will chop my head off, stick it on a spear and parade it around like a trophy. My body and the bodies of my comrades will be eaten by pigs and every civilian left alive in the city will be brutally raped and slaughtered.

WWI was fucked, but Medieval sieges were on a whole other level.

>>587640

>Men in WW1 were pussies according to local fucking retard

>>587703

>Medieval sieges were on a whole other level.

Pfft, Verdun and the Somme make most Medieval sieges look like a day spa.

Even in the longest medieval sieges the besieged lived in their home town, with some supplies being smuggled through the siege lines.

In WW1 troops did not get to live in a city, they lived in mud, shell craters, dugouts and ruins where all of the same conditions of the worst medieval siege were present. Disease, vermin, poor nutrition etc etc, not to mention new memes like intermittent mortar fire suddenly blowing you up, artillery barrages that annihilated the environment so badly that the scars can still be seen from the air, being told to march through waist deep mud while under machine gun fire and, finally, the use chemical weapons.

Buddy if you think medieval sieges have shit on WW1 then you need to re read your history.

>>587707

I woulsnt say they were pussies but it is obvious that as technology progresses people are continuing to grow soft.

>>587703

No medieval siege lasted long unless they actually had like a couple of years worth of grains stockpiled, defenders would either make sortie or find an agreement long before dying of starvation.

Because when a long siege did happened the besiegers often starved out before the besieged and since most medieval conflicts were about money, both sides quickly came to arrangements.

I think the only case of serious medieval cannibalism in a siege was in China (as in as a good chink lord, the general in charge ordered his soldiers to execute the entire civilian population of the city and eat them. To his defense he was defending a crucial fortress on a network and his delaying action indeed brought victory to his side).

Also the whole idea of a siege is that you always have hope of getting relieved.

In WWI the only hope to get out of a frontline was catching a bullet (which is why so many soldiers mutilated themselves at the risk of being executed).

>>587699

>>587700

It's a whistle.

I would say medieval and earlier would be the worst, fighting with melee weapons is brutal as fuck and then some rich kid noble rides by on an armoured horse and shatters your shoulder with a mace.

>>587724

I believe there were also a few cases of cannibalism during the crusades, but those were rare and heavily frowned upon by the leaders of the armies.

Berlin 1945

Dresden 1945

Breslau 1945

Hamburg 1943

>>587728

>Bows are fine because you have to be upper class to have time to learn it, other than that you would be accused of poaching.

The English had mandatory archery training for peasants.

>>587703

> but Medieval sieges were on a whole other level.

That's because the vast majority of OUR medieval sieges was as defendants against mudslimes, the majority of them being turkroaches. I am willing to bet that most of European intraracial sieges were barely worse than WWI trenchcrawling and in most cases shorter and the only objectively worst part was the fate of the defending warriors if they were defeated.

>>587727

I thought the reason crossbows were invented was because traditional bows allowed metallic armour to exist.

>>587798

crossbows were invented by chinese and were used for breaking mongol cavalry charges

ancient romans at the end at least already knew crossbows but mainly used big as fuck scorpions/ballistas or probably as hunting weapon

and bows have nothing to do with development of better armor

>>587798

Read about the Battle of Agincourt. 7,000 English longbowmen annihilated the French army that outnumbered them 3-1. Cavalry: completely wiped out. French knights and men at arms advanced across fields of freshly ploughed mud headfirst into a storm of arrows so thick that they were getting killed through the slit visors of their bascinets. Longbow arrows could also penetrate armored extremities.

>>587811

actually, why didnt they just retreat and come back at better time? its not like enemy will run away since they have huge cavalry advantage

i guess frogs would sperg over muh honor or something as always

>>587813

>It is possible that all dead soldiers and civilians were also eaten after this incident

What. The. Fuck.

I heave heard stories of people eating books, rats and dogs to survive, even stories about people eating those who died of injury or starvation.

But who the FUCK decides to just kill a couple of people for dinner instead of giving up? What kind of loyalty is this? These people didn't "stay loyal", they turned into monsters! They literally ate the population of the city they were meant to protect. If 30.000 people were eaten and only 400 people were left, why did nobody get the idea that maybe surrendering would not only cause less trouble, but also reduce the number of FUCKING CORPSES YOU HAVE TO EAT IN YOUR LIFE. Even if your captors would kill or enslave you, why not just commit suicide then?

Why didn't the attackers decide to storm the city alredy? If there were more than 10.000 people inside the city it would take at least that number of people to besiege it, right? Maybe a few more or less, but it's not like these 10.000 soldiers couldn't walz over 1.000 half starved faggots. Even if they had the most defencible position imaginable, like a megafortess you used to see in the old "post pic of your base in zombie apocalypse" threads, I still doubt that they would have lost against people so malnourished that they turned into cannibals.

Please don't tell me they didn't wait at least a week after all non-human food ran out to start eating each other.

>>587822

Sounds like they were a bunch of sociopaths being turboautistic about not losing any face, even if they had to dehumanize themselves and face a plate of human flesh.

>>587826

>Sounds like they were a bunch of sociopaths being turboautistic about not losing any face

They saved the face as leftovers for tomorrow.

>>587828

That's a bit on the nose, don't you think?

>>587821

The French were determined not to let the English leave the country so they set up a blockade. The French held the maxim that "if you stand completely still and don't attack, you'll surely win" which worked great for them with the Magniot Line a few hundred years later. So they let the English set up cavalry defenses first, then charged with their cavalry after the English provoked them. When that failed the whole army attacked in their arrogance, because "britbong arrows can't penetrate frog steel".

A literal mountain of bodies started to form at the front of the French line so that all the subsequent frogs exhausted themselves trying to scale it and couldn't even lift their weapons afterwards. By the time they thought about running away the English longbowmen had taken up entrenching tools, flanked the army, and began beating the shit out of the knights in close combat.

>>587833

True. You try saying that around chinks and you'll get an earful.

>>587811

This was because the mud and the confusion resulted from it rather than longbow.

Longbow contributed, greatly, no doubt.

>>587821

>>587811

>entire English army is made from lol peasants with a few foot knights (all the horses had been eaten/sold for food)

>only around 8000 of them in total, most of them suffering from dysentery (which would later kill Henry V)

>French army had around 10-20k mounted knights

>no way for them to escape, nearest friendly port is 40 miles away

>French arrogance got the better of them (plus the King of England is a quality ransom)

>charge down a hill

>proceed to lose half of the French nobility in a few hours (and the throne of France)

By far the best bit of the battle was the individual French knights surrendering to the peasants thinking they knew about the chivalric code (you have to take them prisoner) and the peasants just throwing them to the ground and stabbing them through their visors.

We then proceeded to do it again at Crecy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cr%C3%A9cy

Thus starting a long line of consistently beating the French, just don't mention Joan of Arc she is a crossdressing whore of the French king.

>>587847

Then begin the fall, and the French got the world's first professional army (yes AFTER Joan of Arc) and whipped the Brits out of France.

But that's another story for another day.

Henry V died shortly after Agincourt as well, and Henry VI was…terrible.

>>587847

>did it again

lmao wtf am I on about, Crecy was before Agincourt, need some more caffeine in me.

>>587849

We kinda had years of civil going on, came back into form during Henry 7/8th though

>>587847

English longbows were so awesome that they were replaced with wooden sticks with pipes strapped to them that shot a piece of rock or metal once every 2 minutes. Sorry to say, the whole longbow thing is a piece of English mythology more than history.

I'll say WW1 was without a doubt the worst. Melee combat in the olden days didn't traumatize people nearly as much because you actually fought an enemy face to face, you came to terms with him. Even the losers who left the field at least had a chance to fight and see the enemy face to face.

WW1 was little more than waiting in a trench filled with mud and water waiting to be randomly blown up by an artillery shell. The frontal charges of the old days lead to hand to hand combat that allowed you to come to grips with your enemy, in later wars leap frogging and movement gave you the feeling that you were on the move, that you could do something. WW1 was frontal charges into artillery, machine guns, and bolt action rifles in prepared lines, suicide to "go over the top" or waiting in your trench, HELPLESS as you wonder if the next random artillery shell is yours. And there is NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT.

You sat in a trench. Maybe you might move at some point… to another trench. You got to look around and see trenches and mud. Watch your feet rot off in the mud. Wait for that random artillery shell. Just waiting.

Its helpful for morale for the troops to move, to get a chance to fight back effectively, to feel they can fight. In every way, the trench fighter was in a horrible condition, everything was terrible. No great victories, no great offenses, defense was rotting away in constant threat from the big guns. Hell.

That's why it was called shell shock, because it really wasn't seen nearly as much before. People were tougher from a tougher life, and as I said, melee is far easier on a man. He fights, he comes to terms, he is not helpless.

>>587879

The problem is that no one mentions drawbacks.

Yes it had a long range, but at that range wind can carry an arrow enough to miss an entire formation heading toward you. It was very long and unweildy, people were shorter back then not taller, and the damn thing was two meters in length. It was also very expensive in terms of training, no one factors in how many hours per day peasants had to spend training instead of doing peasant things, which was shit on the economy.

>>587884

Bows had a lot of drawbacks. More than any other weapon in history, actually. In fact you had to draw them back every time you shoot.

>>587884

It was every Saturday morning for 2-3 hours for every peasant in England iirc, it was a day off for most people so it didn't do anything to the economy.

no shit it had drawbacks and it wasn't even the best ranged weapon of the time, it just performed well enough to make it's place in history

The point is the value of the bows were exaggerated. It wasn't just bows that won the early part of the war. The ability for arrows to pierce armor was exaggerated, many knights were taken alive even after the barrage. The myth that the peasant army was superior to the warrior class was the biggest of all.

I hear Anglo historians, even the American ones, sit around and jerk off and go "That was the end of cavalry and the rise of the infantry as dominant force in Europe, yes indeed the English longbow changed history forever and we should have listened to Crecy and we could have avoided WW1 entirely!". Considering the heavy cavalry still dominated for another 300 years, considering that tercios were designed to stop heavy cavalry, considering it was changes in the military structure overall and guns that finally changed things for good, not bows, all points to these claims as being well over the damned top.

Those were some great victories, I agree, but the long bow's use there has been abused by many to push this agenda or that, to make one false claim or another.

Much of its "importance" today is retrospect, to "explain" why we should have seen WW1 trench warfare almost 600 years before it happened, to "explain" why we should have seen the "superiority" of the left wing ideal of the citizen solider and the "grandiosity" of forced mass conscription. It was a great tale to lie about after the first world war and a great setup for WW2 and the Cold War.

It also is a huge component of left wing red bullshit. Trying to convince Johnny Everyman that he can stand up to professional soldiers when the gloried revolution comes. Also useful to helping to disarm and destroy Europe's standing armies because "Johnny Everyman can just be conscripted and thrown into the meat grinder next time anyhow, why do we need a pro army".

>>587879

Better hope it's not raining on the day you want to use those fancy bows.

>>587723

Or we just hear more about it now?

>>587888

>just practice on your day off when you're supposed to be resting

Yeah I'm sure there were no injuries.

>>587864

The funny this is centuries later you had the battle of Vienna which is almost he opposite of Crecy. An army full of infantry armed with bows and rifles defeated by armored cavalry armed with lances and swords.

>>587898

Sunday is the day of rest lad, most medieval peasants only worked 150 days a year.

>>587864

England had to give up the bow in the age of gunpowder since they'd cut down all their yew trees.

>>587638

They were striving for one attack that would end it all. The Somme only happened because the Germans had the plan of bleeding the French Army white at Verdun and they damn well got close enough that the French army mutinied shortly after that affair. Even the spring offensive was aimed at making a wedge between armies and marching right through France unimpeded.

>>587768

Kursk, Stalingrad, Leningrad. I'd say Kursk was the worst for the tide broke and rolled back.

>>587911

More of they knocked all their Yew down and Portuguese couldn't keep up to the demand as well, also it takes fucking forever to train a dingdong to use a bow correctly where as with a musket its a month tops. The Duke of Wellington wanted longbowmen for this Iberian campaign but it was estimated by the time they had them trained it'd be long over.

>>587833

The only thing on the nose here is some spices for flavoring.

ww3 not nukes but smart weapons.

>>587638

>>587919

Why do people complain about number of people who've died in the recent conflicts?

>>587919

What would have had happened if he had longbowmen?

>>587782

>was

>implying they wouldn't pull that exact same shit today if they had to

>>587930

Because they don't know what real suffering is. They don't know what its like to do with ersatz goods because the slightly less ersatz stuff is at the front or knowing that 75% of your family including extended relatives are dead or have been horribly maimed. There hasn't been a good war in a long fucking time and I can tell you right now if one started those people would be the first to riot and be shot, good fucking riddance.

>>587932

Probably use them as some sort of skirmisher or someone fairly behind the men with muskets i.e constant firepower, I haven't exactly read into it.

>>587930

Because their sacrifices accomplished nothing.

Where is Francebro? I want to see his arguments against the Cressy battle.

>>587727

THE FIRST BATTLE I BEAT HIM

>>587811

I have read that drowning in the mud was the most common cause of death at Agincourt. Sure longbows are good but wearing full plate in knee deep mud is suicide.

>>587944

Literally the weather.

Again, same for Agincourt, God seems to favor the English in these battles and bless them with mud and rain.

>>587623

I read a book on the history of WWI aviators. According to it, at first, before arming aircraft further than pilot carried revolvers, pilots basically acted like bros to one another. After mounted guns came along, it turned to competitiveness, each pilot trying to prove themselves as the best. By war's end, every veteran pilot seemed to have become an utterly jaded sociopath or suicidally apathetic.

>>588026

Come to think of it didn't the french lose Waterloo because of shitty weather as well?

>>587617

>True hell: Japanese side concentration camps from WWII

FTFY

>>588036

You just blow in front reddit? Auschwitz had a pool, regular soccer games, concerts, a library, and a fucking museum. Only at the end of the war would things've become shit because of no food and disease, but that doesn't even remotely compare to jap Unit 731 and their POW camps.

>>587608

Overall I'd say the World War I period of chemical warfare wins out. Up until that point wars were a pretty rules-based affair with clear goals to establish a winner. New designs came out like cavalry and guns, but war was more or less the same affair and you could expect reasonable accommodations even if you lost, with most injuries either killing you outright or just causing you to lose a limb to infection. Even with one arm or with a missing leg you could still be a functional human being.

World War 1 saw the introduction of nerve gas/chemical weapons, widespread use of machine guns, & artillery that would effectively blind you, possibly deafen you, possibly castrate you, paralyze half your body, etc. Instead of dying, the possible fate of becoming a useless human being who could only work in a select few fields of work became a possibility, and if the chemicals didn't kill you now, they'd kill you later. There was a thing called a "Death March" up until that point that less-developed nations employed to get within effective range without wasting the stamina of your troops where as long as you weren't in the very front, you were probably safe. With the introduction of machine weaponry, death marches were basically suicide for the entire army. No longer would you just have to fear death or a missing limb, but you'd have to fear what you'd do if you didn't die in the war. There's a reason that shit was banned in various treaties/conventions on war when every weapon up to that point was fair game.

>>588044

I came here to post this.

>>588045

I mean it's like how historically, in most of the wars (at least between nearby civilizations) the death tolls tended to be fairly low compared to the actual population because it wasn't a viable long-term plan to rape and murder everything since it would just get your enemies riled up to come invade you in your weakened state if a survivor got away and told the tale of what happened. Even in Russia the Golden Hordes very rarely did this shit at the level you're describing, and even then it was usually because they killed the majority of the enemy command or some royalty using an underhanded tactic. Castle/siege wars were a largely civil affair post-siege.

>>587847

>Thus starting a long line of consistently beating the French

You won so much you got confined on a island for 3 centuries.

Ah the British selective memory.

>>588050

Whatever you say Abdul.

>>587822

It takes an average of about three times an enemy's forces to effectively siege a fortified fort/castle, just as a reference. You could probably get away with double the enemy's forces in a prolonged siege, but if you didn't have at least that much you would fail due to the enemy's defensive advantage. Or at least that was common military knowledge back in the day.

>>588045

>Retarded foreigners don't know anything about Turkish sieges on Greek cities

Why am I not surprised

>>587887

Underrated smartassery.

>>588087

Thanks a lot chilebro, you've saved me a bunch of time.

>>587904

So you're a fucking liar on top of being a slimy cunt.

>>588107

What? Sunday is considered the day of rest in Christianity, doesn't mean it was their only day off.

There was always a shortage of food, and the work was terrible, miserable, and hard. The peasant's field work was backbreaking, it was mankilling, body wrecking work. 16 hours in the hot sun cutting grass for hay by hand on a dry hot day is not something people remember fondly or wish to do again if they don't have to.

That being said, I'll agree somewhat with what has been said about how people didn't work as much back in the day, in some regards. Without electric lighting, the darkness brought the end of the workday, both in the field and in the shop. It also meant the workday might start early in the summer, but also later in the winter. Sunday was a day off. For peasants and yeoman, the rainy day was a day one could not do much work even if they really wanted to. Stormy weather saw more drinking than working.

As much as those who bash serfdom for this or that, they forget that a lazy serf who got his work done, filled his contract with the manor, finished the field work on the land he had, his obligations were finished and he could do whatever he wanted. The free yeoman could choose to do other work to make himself better off when he was done with his own work, but he was not obligated to.

All in all, the work was far worse, the need for the products of production was far greater, one was motivated to work for necessity than luxury, the conditions far worse. I'll agree. I'll also agree that people back in the day didn't work al the time like we do now. Its the factory that brought us the idea of a 24 hour work day, along with electric lights, 7 days a week of work, 52 weeks a year, where a man might not work hard, but he will work steady, perhaps nonstop.

The exhaustion people feel today is part form the fact we don't need to work as much to live extremely well, we aren't as motivated. But the other part is, even if the work is far easier, we work far, far more than a lot of people who wrecked their bodies working sunup to sundown in the fields.

Even if modern work does not consume and destroy our bodies like it used to, it does consume all of our time. With democratic socialism and its engineering, 80/20 has turned into 100/20 as central planners and industry now push to have 20% of the most productive do 100% of the work so we can have 60%+ of the population jack off and do nothing till death. Those that don't work do no work, and the one's who do work will do nothing but work. To make up for those who don't.

Rant over.

>>588052

>Battle of Agincourt

>Part of the Hundred Years' War (Lancaster Phase).

>The Lancastrian War was the third phase of the Anglo-French Hundred Years' War.

>Result: French victory.

>End of the Hundred Years' War.

>House of Valois retains the French throne. >English and French monarchies remain separate.

>Strengthening of the French monarchy.

>Weakening of the British monarchy, leading to the Wars of the Roses (50 years of civil wars and thrones claimants revolts that will extinguish of both royal lines and made the British parliament true king. Once peace was painfully achieved, the second ruler of the new royal line immediately killed his father ministers and then decided to schism the British church because the Pope had enough of his degeneration, launching a religion war that persisted until the 1980's…).

>English claims to the French throne de facto abandoned (there was still a few invasions attempts, all ended in total failure).

>England permanently loses almost all of its continental possessions including Normandy and Aquitaine.

So great. Agincourt publicity is pure British propaganda to make people forget that British monarchy technically won the 100 years war.

Then the PEOPLE of France actually got mad and kicked British ass so badly it has active political consequence TO THIS VERY DAY.

Taiping Rebellion might be cool.

the mexican side in the mexican-american war deserves a mention

>mass conscripted

>constantly marching in desert

>little to no supplies and food, fair to say that the majority of troops were half-starved during the entire campaign if they didn't outright die

>irregular equipment

>aloof officers who would beat soldiers en-mass, while at the same time giving vain speeches about how great it is to fight for mexico

>you have a guy named Santa leading the largest army

>suffer constant humiliating defeats

>commanders shit the bed so bad you loose your capital in an offensive war

also some specific battles must've been hell

>that one time Santa camped in the open and the majority of his army was wiped out via texan bayonet

>that one time your army of 20,000 goes against 100 and you suffer upwards of 1,000 causalities because they had makeshift shrapnel shot and your offices marched you in columns up to the walls

>that one time your army of 15,000 (5,000 starved) goes up against 5,000 and you loose because your commanders just let you get shot by rifles

>that one time where aforementioned beserker texans mousehole through the buildings your army is camping in and stab multiple regiments

>that one time where men taught by beserker texans forced the remainder of an army to a town square and then bombed the shit out of them with mortars

>that one time where a bunch of children jump off a building because you lost the war

For women, of course, the answer is pretty simple. Every month

Anything Moden. You can die at any time from any direction without even realizing there was danger nearby. Though on the other hand, standing in a line marching directly towards volley fire without being able to do anything because Calvary will pick you off if you scatter, would also be pretty terrifying. But at least you know you’re in a fight before you die.

>>588043

Unit 731 is as much of a hoax as the holocaust

>>588164

Really wouldn't surprise me but I haven't seen any damning evidence debunking like with the holocaust.

On this topic, I read Unbroken recently and a lot of it seems really, really ridiculously made up. Sounds like it's more from an action movie than a historical account, from a random lone zero strafing inflatable boats and the occupants diving underneath it, only one guy suffering a mild wound, and no holes being blown in the boat to an entire camp of mentally retarded schizophrenic drug-addicted prison guards to constant fantastical torture for no reason. Only interesting part was the details about the B-24.

>>588162

[citation needed]

>>588164

>>588168

Oh yeah, and not to mention the fucking shark that followed the boat the entire way like in a kid's pirate movie or some shit.

>>588162

Indeed, but its left out of mainstream history because its not romantic. Also anti war people want you to think that its almost impossible to survive combat or that a minority only survives. Non combat Civil War units saw more of their troops shit themselves to death without seeing anything close to battle than combat deaths in modern western units in the current campaigns.

Side note, one thing about those old numbers is that sometimes the accounting has to be looked at. Some "casualties" might be deserters who don't like the war, or people who faked death or simply disappeared so they could jump units and join a new one for a recruitment bonus. Numbers are a thing that seem to get muddy in some cases of histroy.

>>588084

>>588082

>>588087

Now I wan a tabletop wargame set in that universe.

>>588043

>jap Unit 731

literally "asian mengele's tour of curbstomping fetuses"-tier of masturbatory fiction Kinda pointless since it only reduces MSRP of gibs for holocaust.

>and their POW camps.

Considering that camps in korea were staffed by koreans, you can only blame them

Also someone had to sell the comfort women in order for IJA to buy them. (this is illegal to point out in Korea)

>>588473

oh, and on the subject of hurting your own "because gnatzees forced you"

Look up (((Chaim Rumkowski))), jew ghetto boss so kind, Gestapo had to intervene and tell him to take it easy with the antisemtism.

>>588036

I guess he was talking about unit 731, with japanese experiments in China. Way worse than german concentration camps, and began earlier.

>>588045

>even the fucking Sandniggers didn't do this shit

Maybe not but turks certainly did, again and again and again. Where the fuck did you think based Vlad learnt his tricks from?

>>588480

I meant being stuck on Iwo Jima shitting yourself in a cave while the entrance is blocked with the rotting bodies of your comrades.

>>587608

The true question is, how do we make war comfy?

>>588483

By fighting for legitimate reasons, like protecting our lands from shitskins or mass-genociding shitskins.

Any war where you don't fight just because the politician told you to is a comfy war. Foreigners have completely forgotten what wars are about. They think every war is for oil or money, but the truth is, some wars are legit racial/revenge wars. The Balkans are a perfect example. With the exception of some wars that did happen due to American interference.

>>588482

Indeed, it must have been hell …

Recent events in the Balkans or in Africa have been pretty ugly too, albeit diferent in the sense that civilians were fighting.

Seeing the bodies of children, women and families you used to live with must be horrible.

>>588525

It would make sense to me. Someone who fights for something he believes in should be mentally stronger than some college student who got sent in Iraq to die for Israel. Is there any research done on this somewhere?

>>588484

>foreigners

We call those "xeno-scum" around here, patrioti.

>>587847

M8 the French would come out on top win the 100 years war push the English out of the mainland and be the predominate power for quite some time.

>>588052

Your prince married a nigger

>>587703

Shit dude, I'd pick a average, well mannered and scheduled medieval siege any day over trench warfare. Getting wet sucks, and getting no fucking sleep sucks even more. Atleast with your average medieval siege it's just two groups of mercenaries staring at each other until one lord or another does some lordly business related to lordly property in some lordly slowly manner. Neither commanding lord has any interest in actually commiting to a fight in most cases, as fighting means that you are less likely to get these mercenaries to join you next time you need them, and you might end up losing whatever town or castle it was you are trying to get. And if you're supposed to take over some disputed town or village, would you kill your way through it's population, and therefore end up undermining your own future profits? Will you risk burning the whole damn town? Or, will you just wait and literally just walk in after they get bored?

Ofcourse, when religion or some severely fucked up blood-feuds become the issue then things start getting awfully ugly awfully quickly.

But then again, when that glorious bastard Raynald de'Chatillon gets involved, everything gets more interesting. I mean shit dude, what kind of man decides that he will carry a small fleet through a desert just so that he can do some crusader-viking stuff in the red sea against muslims and those who trade with them?

>>587822

Walls lmao. You can't see how many people there are inside a city through walls, you can only see the faggots prancing on top of the walls and ramparts. Joking aside, chinese simply do not have same or even vaguely similar view on other human beings than say, japs or white europeans.

>>588864

I am well aware of how it ended (granted it wasn't really a single war, more a collection of them over a long period of time), didn't stop some of the greatest victories in English history happening though.

>>588865

The fact that he married an American is insult enough tbh

>>588879

Very much. We spend so much time on the most violent and often times decisive battles that are fought to the bitter end and we start to think that every battle was a vicious battle to the finish with extremely high casualties. You get modern anti war propaganda to try to convince you that half or more Americans who went to Vietnam died in battle, or that every war was more likely to kill you than not. The opposite was often the case.

The right wing, the nobility, relied upon their nobles and soldiers, they were military people all the way through. Your best soldiers and knights are irreplacable and you cannot afford to lose them, they are those who keep the worst of the peasants from thinking they can cause a revolt, they keep the other warring nobles at bay, they are your internal strength. High casualties can ruin you, lose your nobles, lose your professionals, you lose your powerful core and you are weak. As you also mention, the mercenaries were professional soldiers who were in the business of fighting, not getting killed on the battlefield. Raise your peasant levy? Bad idea to abuse, you need those guys to work the fields or else your rents will go down and your lands and people will suffer.

Just because modern wars are all turning into total wars doesn't mean the old wars were that way. Far from it, that's why they were better. As you Finn mentions, the nobles would negotiate and peace would be settled before things got out of hand. War is too costly to divided and small lord based systems, it was better to use force as a threat and settle your differences carefully.

Instead of the conscript meat grinders of today, back in the old days it tended to be if you won a solid battle it would often end the war. I don't mean you had to wipe out the enemy, kill all his men, break him completely, just bloody him good enough and he will sue for peace instead of taking the losses of a long struggle, fighting to the last man and resources is retarded and makes you poorer. The "grand little campaigns" were the norm for much of history, especially medeival.

Today you get retard wars like the American Civil War were they keep killing people till one side runs out of men, which set the stage for later conflicts that ruined nations, continents, and perhaps whole civilizations.

>>588886

Wasn't his mum a slut for shitskin cock, too? It's probably hereditary. A genetic inclination towards shitskin bodily fluids.

>>588887

>Today you get retard wars like the American Civil War

What even happened during that to cause those massive combat losses? The Crimean War (which was considered a retarded war from the start) was around the same time and had very minimal combat loses (majority were from disease due to fighting with turks)

>>588888

Yeah she got killed off because she was dating some muzzie oil baron. Spencers are an odd lot tbh, Churchill was from the same family, might come from the intermarriage with yank high society.

>>588889

> cause those massive combat losses

An extreme will to fight, not to mention line tactics in an age with rifled guns just leads to a bloody mess, where as with Crimea you had a set piece here and there with a siege.

>>588889

>What even happened during that to cause those massive combat losses?

See >>588890

Accurate rifles improved the chances of actually hitting people and dissuaded the tactic of charging after one or two volleys. It seemed more practical to fire volley after volley until the enemy was dead or surrendered.

>>588889

>>588890

Are you fellows aware that 2/3rd's of the American war dead were due to disease and not combat? Less of a meat grinder and moar of a shit grinder, as per usual in many campaigns' and wars. The combat could be ferocious at times, but so could the bad food and water.

I've read a few histories of non combat units in the ACW, even the ones that never saw battle saw high casualty, the good old friend of attrition. Shows you that either the US is big enough, or had enough population and waterways, that people could not march in groups here and there without major disease issues.

>>587849

>French got the world's first professional army

Frogs aren't Romans.

>>588889

The yanks were bloodlusting for the complete rape of the South, so we fought those bastards tooth and nail. Abraham Lincoln was a Jew

>>587674

I can't speak for the rest of the world, but aussies and turks actually had regular ceasefire days where both sides agreed to stop fighting so they could clean up all the corpses in no-man's land. Having dead men sitting there breeding vermin and disease and horrifying everybody hurts both sides and helps nobody, after all.

>>589459

My great-grandfather said they weren't allowed to take weapons on to no mans land during these little armistices however they used to sneak the weapons already there back to their own trenches.

He also said an Australian soldier fired a shot and everyone was shitting themselves but it didn't escalate. He wasn't sure if it was deliberate or an ND but the officers were fuming.

>>588950

Post antiquity.

>>588525

Depends how you look at it.

My great-uncle who was a Catholic fighting for the Brits in WW1, got a nasty lick of mustard, but he didn't let it damper him.

My great-granfather who was a paratrooper in WW2 fro the US, ended up becoming a POW because of the Battle of the Bulge, and he ended up drinking himself to death. He was also a staunch Catholic.

My grandfather on the mothers side, was a British paraglider, and had memories of watching his friends drown, as well as being called in to identify his brother's corpse after he got his face removed by a German sniper. Old man didn't live it down, and actually tossed my mother into a river and told her to "swim or die" the same order his commanding gave him. Once again, Catholic.

War fucks with the mind man. Everyone snaps eventually.

>>589489

I think the lesson we can all gather from this is Catholics are fucking crazy.

>>588043

>You just blow in front reddit?

>says the guy biting the most obvious bait ever

>>588146

>The holocaust never happened

So Hitler was a fraud and /pol/ should stop worshipping him?

>>589489

>ended up drinking himself to death. He was also a staunch Catholic

So 2/3 guys you listed ended up coming out normal then.

t. Catholic

>>589622

>hurr /pol/ irrationally hates jews

You ARE from reddit, aren't you?

>>588052

Of course the Brit calling the French guy Abdul hid his flag. Britain is much worse than France on the muslim issue.

>>589625

What about the guy who threw his own daughter into the fucking river then?

>>589708

There are much, much more muslims in France than in the UK.