Would you rather fight in WW2 or Vietnam? Watch

katetaylor
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
Wasn't sure where to put this, just a general interest. Thanks!

Personally I'd opt for WW2, jungles and ambushes are not really favourable.
2
quote
reply
M1011
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
Vietnam. More chance of still being alive, given the dates.
1
quote
reply
mphysical
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
(Original post by katetaylor)
Personally I'd opt for WW2, jungles and ambushes are not really favourable.
Do you actually know anything about either of these conflicts?
So nobody fought in the jungle in WWII and all fighting in Vietnam was settled by ambushes?
15
quote
reply
katetaylor
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#4
I wasn't saying ALL combat was like that but seriously, can you not just let a thread roll?
6
quote
reply
linney
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
(Original post by katetaylor)
Wasn't sure where to put this, just a general interest. Thanks!

Personally I'd opt for WW2, jungles and ambushes are not really favourable.
Depends where.

I mean, if I was drafted into Africa or Italy or anywhere on the Med front really, then I'd be more willing to fight in WW2. If, hypothetically, I was a German/Russian on the Eastern front, was shipped out following Germany's defeat to the Pacific (all that jungle fighting/ambushing you hate OP) or had any prolonged stay on the Western, then I'd take Vietnam.

You'd have a better chance of surviving if you fought in Vietnam given the wars duration and relatively small geographical size.
3
quote
reply
Solid.Snake
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
If i had to i guess i would say WW2...
1
quote
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
WWII... the Hun treated their military prisoners fairly well.
0
quote
reply
Arbolus
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by mphysical)
Do you actually know anything about either of these conflicts?
So nobody fought in the jungle in WWII and all fighting in Vietnam was settled by ambushes?
Jungle ambushes made up a much bigger proportion of the fighting in Vietnam than they did in WWII as a whole. You'd have a better chance of avoiding jungles if you chose to fight in the 40s rather than the 60s.
1
quote
reply
mphysical
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by the bear)
WWII... the Hun treated their military prisoners fairly well.
The Eastern Front was by far the biggest clash of manpower.
You would have been happy to have been taken prisoner as a Russian would you?
0
quote
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by mphysical)
The Eastern Front was by far the biggest clash of manpower.
You would have been happy to have been taken prisoner as a Russian would you?
I am unable to answer that question Sir
0
quote
reply
TheFrozenLake.
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
Depends on which front in world war two tbh..

Wouldn't go near the Japanese one.

Posted from TSR Mobile
1
quote
reply
psl007
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
I think people forget to realize the British/Americans fought WW2 in the jungles in the Pacific.
1
quote
reply
callmemorbid
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
probably WW2 as the americans put the vietnamese through some pretty awful stuff and later suffered from physiological disorders as a result- sure people in WW2 did as well but not so large a scale
1
quote
reply
username948920
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
WW2 - I would fight for ideals which I believed in.
5
quote
reply
AwsomePossum
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
Well id pick world war two europe or Africa. The japs were paps. Im joining the royal regiment of scotland next week so maybe i will see the sandpit
1
quote
reply
edwinemanuelposse
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
I would join the germans..
7
quote
reply
pjm600
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
Probably WW2, defending Grand Britannia an all.
2
quote
reply
nixonsjellybeans
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
WW2- That war had to be fought for numerous reasons. Also i'd take my chances on a random fighting zone rather than be plonked straight into a jungle environment fighting against an invisible enemy and for a nation thats own legitimacy was debatable.

Having said that i'd assume you'd have a better survival rate in Vietnam (albeit with traumatic experiences).

Korea or Vietnam is a question i'd like to ask...
1
quote
reply
psl007
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by nixonsjellybeans)
WW2- That war had to be fought for numerous reasons. Also i'd take my chances on a random fighting zone rather than be plonked straight into a jungle environment fighting against an invisible enemy and for a nation thats own legitimacy was debatable.

Having said that i'd assume you'd have a better survival rate in Vietnam (albeit with traumatic experiences).

Korea or Vietnam is a question i'd like to ask...
Highly doubt that, in 68 the average life expectancy of a 2nd Lieutenant in combat was 18mins.
0
quote
reply
hamijack
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
WW2. I want to kill Nazis.
5
quote
reply
X

Reply to thread

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you like exams?

Yes (133)
18.42%
No (438)
60.66%
Not really bothered about them (151)
20.91%

Watched Threads

View All