Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Would you rather fight in WW2 or Vietnam? Watch

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Spelling always matters! :fuhrer:

    Yeah I found it, it is awesome thus far and that Saiga-12 :adore: I want one
    Apparently theres a KGB Vs. CIA one as well
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Depends in what army I'm fighting in. Different casualty rates. Didn't close to 30 million Soviets die in WW2? and 5 million Germans?
    The British army's casualties were comparatively small, so I'd go fighting with the British in ww2.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by nixonsjellybeans)
    Apparently theres a KGB Vs. CIA one as well
    I saw that but it wouldn't be as interesting to watch, I mean the KGB weren't exactly packing a punch although then again the CIA was pretty much infantile at this point... it'd be a lame episode IMO
    (Original post by DavidSilvaMCFC)
    Didn't close to 30 million Soviets die in WW2? and 5 million Germans?
    Are you talking in a military capacity or overall losses that includes civilian and military? You also have to remember that the Soviet Union had the Baltic states, half of Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia and the Stans, while actual Russians did indeed take the brunt of the losses, all the other countries combined lost similar numbers. 26,600,000 died from the Soviet Union of which 10,700,000 were military deaths. (Source: Wikipedia and other documents).

    The 'Third Reich' (Germany, Austria and other annexed countries) lost five million in military deaths and as many as five million as civilian deaths, making the total around nine million approximate in total losses. (Source: History in school way back when ).

    The UK lost around 400,000 men but then again you had a tiny population and army compared to Germany and Russia so while there appears to be less of a chance of you being killed, in comparison to populations I'd say there is an equal or greater chance of being killed to a German being killed but less in comparison to a Russian purely because the Russian effort of poorly managed at the start.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    I saw that but it wouldn't be as interesting to watch, I mean the KGB weren't exactly packing a punch although then again the CIA was pretty much infantile at this point... it'd be a lame episode IMO
    I'm sure we can find you some other episodes of groups killing each other
    Fancy some Israeli combat or something closer to home?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    'Nam. Jungle fighting like a bawss.

    That being said, both wars were pretty horrific.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    WW2. At least WW2 veterans on the winning side could take pride in knowing that they won a justifiable war.
    Vietnamese veterans have to live with the shame of participating, involuntary or otherwise, in one of the biggest military blunders in history. Fighting for a no-cause.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    A girl wants to fight in a war? Really? Am I dreaming here...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    WW2. Seemed like there was a lot more banter in WW2 than Vietnam.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If I wanted to fight a war - WWII. The most spectacular war the world has ever seen. Far more interesting than occupying a country looking for an enemy hiding in the shadows because they can't take you on in the open.

    If I had to fight in a war but didn't want to - Vietnam. As others have said, much higher rate of survival. Not just because of American superiority and lack of big battles but because there was such a massive difference between 60's healthcare and 40's healthcare. Remember that in the 40's antibiotics had just been invented and Vietnam medics have the advantage of techniques and experience gained from and since WWII. Not to mention all the advances in biomedical engineering since such as heart transplants and life support machines.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    To be honest the thought of being a Russian sniper in Stalingrad is quite awesome in a way... Reznov for COD players

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    WW2. Because I fight for ideas and freedom and the preservation of democracy. I'd fight to contribute in brining down the Nazis and stopping their war crimes and termination of the Jews.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    WW2. Because I fight for ideas and freedom and the preservation of democracy. I'd fight to contribute in brining down the Nazis and stopping their war crimes and termination of the Jews.
    Well, Vietnam was also fought for ideological reasons like these.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Well, Vietnam was also fought for ideological reasons like these.
    Aye, but the viet cong didn't carry out mass genocide. Anyway, I didn't say I wouldn't fight in vietnam, I'd just prefer to risk dying in WW2.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    Aye, but the viet cong didn't carry out mass genocide. Anyway, I didn't say I wouldn't fight in vietnam, I'd just prefer to risk dying in WW2.
    I would rather stay close to my desk and never go to sea so I could be the ruler of the Queen's Navy.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Storming Normandy on D-Day.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Hmmn... on one level I would say WW2 because there were fewer combat days per tour of duty so probably a lower chance of getting killed wounded. Perhaps more importantly, assuming you would have me on the allied side, I would believe more in the ultimate cause and there were clear defined goals.

    On the other side, the U.S. had very good Medievac helicopters in 'Nam and wounded soldiers who survived the first 24 h tended to pull through - they also had antibiotics and comparatively better medical facilities.

    However, the military objective was simply to kill as many of the Viet Cong and NVA as they could and I don't think I would want to be involved in a war with that objective. Also the local South Vietnamese were at best neutral and many sided with the Viet Cong/NVA.

    Are you familiar with this song?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8JlTIo--CQ
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Well, Vietnam was also fought for ideological reasons like these.
    No. It was more of a counteraction to communism than a fight for freedom and democracy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thomas2)
    Hmmn... on one level I would say WW2 because there were fewer combat days per tour of duty so probably a lower chance of getting killed wounded. Perhaps more importantly, assuming you would have me on the allied side, I would believe more in the ultimate cause and there were clear defined goals.

    On the other side, the U.S. had very good Medievac helicopters in 'Nam and wounded soldiers who survived the first 24 h tended to pull through - they also had antibiotics and comparatively better medical facilities.

    However, the military objective was simply to kill as many of the Viet Cong and NVA as they could and I don't think I would want to be involved in a war with that objective. Also the local South Vietnamese were at best neutral and many sided with the Viet Cong/NVA.

    Are you familiar with this song?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8JlTIo--CQ
    I've never heard it before, but thanks!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by katetaylor)
    I've never heard it before, but thanks!
    No worries. Are you studying the Vietnam War or just generally interested?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VeniViciVidi)
    No. It was more of a counteraction to communism than a fight for freedom and democracy.
    How is 'counteraction to communism' not idealogical?
 
 
 
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise is the best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.