Would you rather fight in WW2 or Vietnam?

Original post by psl007

Highly doubt that, in 68 the average life expectancy of a 2nd Lieutenant in combat was 18mins.

Fair enough but I wasn't thinking about it in life expectancy terms. You can live all through the war until the last day then get killed.

I think the deployment to death percentage is something like 9/10% of all US troops in vietnam? Whilst WW2 was a under 3%.

You have to consider what side your fighting for as well :holmes:

And in what area as i'd imagine some of locations rise up 9/10% death rate. I'd assume a typical grunt for the USSR would be no better off than a US troop in Vietnam.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 24

Original post by nixonsjellybeans

Fair enough but I wasn't thinking about it in life expectancy terms. You can live all through the war until the last day then get killed.

I think the deployment to death percentage is something like 9/10% of all US troops in vietnam? Whilst WW2 was a under 3%.

You have to consider what side your fighting for as well :holmes:

And in what area as i'd imagine some of locations rise up 9/10% death rate. I'd assume a typical grunt for the USSR would be no better off than a US troop in Vietnam.

Another thing you have to consider is the advancement of weapons/equipment from WW2 to 'Nam. Yes Vietnam had a very high attrition rate compared to WW2, plus the fact that new tactics were being invented as they went along in 'Nam.

The Battle of La Drang was the first time the US used air cavalry (7th U.S. Cavalry at the time, Off topic: Which was General George Custers old regiment the one who got wiped out by the Indians at Battle of Little Bighorn) in combat by using Helicopters to land troops which accounted to the high rates of death.

Reply 25

Swanbow

19

If I could get deployed to East Africa then move on to North Africa and Italy I would probably chose the Second World War. However if I had to fight on the Eastern Front as a German or Russian I much rather chose the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War had higher survival rates and if I was trained as a REMF then I would rarely have to go on patrol anyway.

Reply 26

bluewoodchairs

13

WW2. I'd be fighting for something I truely believed in. I don't mind communism actually, the Americans just had to be total ***** about it.

Reply 27

Original post by psl007

Another thing you have to consider is the advancement of weapons/equipment from WW2 to 'Nam. Yes Vietnam had a very high attrition rate compared to WW2, plus the fact that new tactics were being invented as they went along in 'Nam.

The Battle of La Drang was the first time the US used air cavalry (7th U.S. Cavalry at the time, Off topic: Which was General George Custers old regiment the one who got wiped out by the Indians at Battle of Little Bighorn) in combat by using Helicopters to land troops which accounted to the high rates of death.

Yup, so many things to consider. Theres a big gap in differences to be honest, almost to big to make a reasonable comparison like we're trying to do :tongue:

Reply 28

Original post by nixonsjellybeans

Yup, so many things to consider. Theres a big gap in differences to be honest, almost to big to make a reasonable comparison like we're trying to do :tongue:

It's always fun to try lol.

I remember watching 'Kingdom of Heaven' in the movie theater with a buddy of mine and afterwards we were talking and wondered what would happen if you went back in time to that period with an Abrams A1 Tank. lol

Reply 29

Original post by psl007

It's always fun to try lol.

I remember watching 'Kingdom of Heaven' in the movie theater with a buddy of mine and afterwards we were talking and wondered what would happen if you went back in time to that period with an Abrams A1 Tank. lol

Or the old deadliest warrior debates?
Ninja Vs. Pirate
Knight Vs. Samurai
etc.
Many hours of my life have been spent debating these crazy ideas :lol:

Reply 30

Original post by nixonsjellybeans

Or the old deadliest warrior debates?
Ninja Vs. Pirate
Knight Vs. Samurai
etc.
Many hours of my life have been spent debating these crazy ideas :lol:

The deadliest warrior was good and stupid sometimes lol, as if the LA SWAT could really take down Germany's GSG 9, or the worst of the lot a Pirate vs Knight. Mind you the Spartan could take the lot lol.

Reply 31

adark876

Vietnam, more chance of staying alive + there's LSD :biggrin:

Reply 32

username706386

9

Original post by hamijack

WW2. I want to kill Nazis.

Haha, briliiant! Tarantino's Inglorious Bastards would like you!

But yeah, I would say the same. WW2. In the european theatre though, I would hate to be fighting the the jungle's of asia in either war.

Reply 33

Original post by psl007

The deadliest warrior was good and stupid sometimes lol, as if the LA SWAT could really take down Germany's GSG 9, or the worst of the lot a Pirate vs Knight. Mind you the Spartan could take the lot lol.

It was pretty crazy and random at times.
Spetnaz and Green Beret caused a hellstorm from US & GB viewers who argued that Spetnaz wouldn't win in a million years. I'm glad they won purely because of that :colone:

Reply 34

username706386

9

Original post by psl007

It's always fun to try lol.

I remember watching 'Kingdom of Heaven' in the movie theater with a buddy of mine and afterwards we were talking and wondered what would happen if you went back in time to that period with an Abrams A1 Tank. lol

Yes! I do the same. I was watching 'The Patriot' and during we all constantly had the 'What if he had a machine gun right now!' moments and how that would spice things up.

Thinking about it, what about a minigun in the third Lord of the Rings?

Reply 35

bestofyou

Original post by psl007

I think people forget to realize the British/Americans fought WW2 in the jungles in the Pacific.

Yeah, only British and Americans.

There wasn't any Australians, Malaysians, Indonesians, Russians, Chinese etc etc.

Yeah. only British and Americans, no one else...not even Japanese.

Reply 36