BF2S Forums Which war in history would you LEAST want to fight in and why?

-EcS-Blade wrote:

SysTray wrote:

-EcS-Blade wrote:

My great uncle won a V.C (victoria cross0 in the korean war

Betcha your family is the only one that talks about it.

nope, most people in my town know who he is and there is a bridge named after him and a plaque in my school for him ect ect.

One of the few. I'll tell you the 1 war I never talked about or even touched on in any of my History classes in my lifetime....the Korean.

Last edited by SysTray (2006-10-20 13:48:01)

Stingray24 wrote:

Any war before guns were invented.  You'd get hacked to pieces and bleed to death on the battlefield.

At least it would be because the guy who killed you was better than you. Rather than some guy killing you from miles away without any skill at all.

I would hate to have fought in WWII, especialy not in Russia.
No way!

goblinstomper wrote:

At least it would be because the guy who killed you was better than you. Rather than some guy killing you from miles away without any skill at all.

You're saying using a gun doesn't take skill or programming a missile to make a perfect strike on an object you can't see doesn't require skill?

Obviously it does... just seems less honest.
But thats modern warfare though.
Y waste men in a firefight.

Exactly... and it never solves anything either.
War is pretty pointless really.
Unless your defending yourself, then its your duty to do all that you can.

SysTray wrote:

goblinstomper wrote:

At least it would be because the guy who killed you was better than you. Rather than some guy killing you from miles away without any skill at all.

You're saying using a gun doesn't take skill or programming a missile to make a perfect strike on an object you can't see doesn't require skill?

Using a pre-programmed missile doesn't require a lot of skill. Can't say I've ever done it but I'm sure it can't be too hard. Programming it in the first place is different to just using it.

jarhedch wrote:

Darkhelmet wrote:

Civil War. More people died in the Civil War then any other war.

not a chance, 20,000,000 estimated in WWI, 50,000,000 in WWII,
the 1860 US census totalled 31.4 million people, and we didn't lose more than our entire population by a long shot.

Maybe more Americans, than any other war. But Americans aren't the only people about.

Stingray24 wrote:

Any war before guns were invented.  You'd get hacked to pieces and bleed to death on the battlefield.

For sure.  That must have been scary shit to be in the middle of a battle trying to hack people up while they squirm around and, at the same time, trying to not get hacked up yourself.  If I had to choose between hacking someone up and shooting them from a distance - I would rather shoot them, and if I had to choose between the converse - I would rather get shot.  Those were some brave/angry people to be willing to get involved in that kind of madness.

  = heebee jeebees!!

Bertster7 wrote:

SysTray wrote:

goblinstomper wrote:

At least it would be because the guy who killed you was better than you. Rather than some guy killing you from miles away without any skill at all.

You're saying using a gun doesn't take skill or programming a missile to make a perfect strike on an object you can't see doesn't require skill?

Using a pre-programmed missile doesn't require a lot of skill. Can't say I've ever done it but I'm sure it can't be too hard. Programming it in the first place is different to just using it.

ok not the pre programmed missiles, the "guns", using a gun to kill someone miles away does take some sort of skill, other than hacking at whatever is in front of you.

I wouldn't say it's hacking at whatever is in front of you. Not all the time at least. Most of the Hollywood reproductions of pre-gunpowder battles do give you the idea that everyone just fucking ran like morons until they died or they killed everyone else...that can't be right though. Sure we'll probably never get anything more than some battle plan written in a modified language, but that's better than nothing.

You have to think about what you would do. Winning a battle can't always be sheer numbers, you'd plan it out if you were the leader...and if you were the fighter, you don't want to run right at the enemy because dying isn't really fun.

Bertster7 wrote:

Knightnifer wrote:

Either Vietnam, Falklands, or WW1 - WW1 probably takes it, gotta be so harsh.

Falklands?!? That'd be luxury compared to WWI or something really horrible like feudal Japan or fighting in the crusades.

Describing the Falklands conflict as a comparative luxury is a pretty stupid thing to say. A bayonet snapped off in your face is a bayonet snapped off in your face no matter what the war it happened in was called.

ww3 because nukes will be used