Would you have been able to go over the trenches?

[jpeyton]

Eff no.

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
<-- 13 Foxtrot
Sure I would have been able to. I would have called in artillery, air and naval gun fire. While they were hunkered down in their bunkers I would have skipped accross the trenches.

I don't think they had too much of air fire and too far inland for naval fire back then.

 

[olds]

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
<-- 13 Foxtrot
Sure I would have been able to. I would have called in artillery, air and naval gun fire. While they were hunkered down in their bunkers I would have skipped accross the trenches.

I don't think they had too much of air fire and too far inland for naval fire back then.

I suppose next you'll be telling me that you don't think I would have actually skipped?

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
<-- 13 Foxtrot
Sure I would have been able to. I would have called in artillery, air and naval gun fire. While they were hunkered down in their bunkers I would have skipped accross the trenches.

I don't think they had too much of air fire and too far inland for naval fire back then.

I suppose next you'll be telling me that you don't think I would have actually skipped?

lol I totally missed the skipping part

 

[sdifox]

pretty sure if you stayed behind you get shot too, but by your own people.

 

[Turin39789]

The middle day of the middle year of the First World War, it is remembered as the bloodiest day in the history of the British Army when 57,470 men became casualties of which 19,240 were killed or died of wounds.

 

[Pocatello]

Originally posted by: sdifox
pretty sure if you stayed behind you get shot too, but by your own people.

This. In ancient Rome, if a legion ran away from battle, the entire legion got the decimation treatment. Things haven't changed much. Someone said it's a group thing. My junior high school teacher said this "Human are like lemmings", he was right. You see your buddies going over, you go over. Not to mention the training of becoming a soldier, you're no longer an individual.

 

[Whitecloak]

if you think the trenches were bad, you should read up on the napoleonic wars

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: sdifox
pretty sure if you stayed behind you get shot too, but by your own people.

Yep. There were more than a few executions for cowardice, particularly towards the end of the war.

 

[Pocatello]

Originally posted by: Whitecloak
if you think the trenches were bad, you should read up on the napoleonic wars

The American Civil War was bad too. Tens of thousands of men died in single day of combat. Many died later because of infected wounds.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Pocatello

Originally posted by: Whitecloak
if you think the trenches were bad, you should read up on the napoleonic wars

The American Civil War was bad too. Tens of thousands of men died in single day of combat. Many died later because of infected wounds.

I'm trying to think of a "good" war...

For sheer slaughter, WWI is pretty impressive, much moreso than Napoleonic or The War Between the States imo. Several large nations, railroads and machine guns added up to very large piles of bodies. Read up on Somme, Verdun and Ypres.

 

[Fingolfin269]

I don't think anyone can really answer this question until face to face with the situation. Even people who are well trained have a possiblity of freezing up.

 

[sdifox]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L..._battles_by_casualties


this one is supposed to be the deadliest but the figure is deemed exaggerated. worst of all it is execution after surrender.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Changping

 

[Pocatello]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Pocatello

Originally posted by: Whitecloak
if you think the trenches were bad, you should read up on the napoleonic wars

The American Civil War was bad too. Tens of thousands of men died in single day of combat. Many died later because of infected wounds.

I'm trying to think of a "good" war...

For sheer slaughter, WWI is pretty impressive, much moreso than Napoleonic or The War Between the States imo. Several large nations, railroads and machine guns added up to very large piles of bodies. Read up on Somme, Verdun and Ypres.

The generals were still using old tactics, while the fighting men had to face modern weapons that were designed for mass killings.

 

[dug777]

Without a doubt, yes.

Context, context, context

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: LtPage1
Fuck no. I can think of better ways to spend my life than throwing it away so that the dictatorship I happened to be born into can keep its African and Asian plantations, mines, and slaves.

While the lead seargant is pressing your chest against the wall preparing you to go up and over, I'm sure he'd be interested in those thoughts.

 

[Pocatello]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: LtPage1
Fuck no. I can think of better ways to spend my life than throwing it away so that the dictatorship I happened to be born into can keep its African and Asian plantations, mines, and slaves.

While the lead seargant is pressing your chest against the wall preparing you to go up and over, I'm sure he'd be interested in those thoughts.

Damn hippies! J/K .

 

[skace]

Didn't the poor bastards who stayed in their trenches get a nice dose of agent orange or some shit?

 

[Pocatello]

Originally posted by: skace
Didn't the poor bastards who stayed in their trenches get a nice dose of agent orange or some shit?

Mustard gas, and others.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: skace
Didn't the poor bastards who stayed in their trenches get a nice dose of agent orange or some shit?

No, more like a bullet from the officer in charge or a court martial followed by a firing squad.

Agent orange didn't exist in WWI, they used much more toxic chemicals. But you'd be subjected to them while you were waiting in the trenches anyway in the days/weeks before the offensive anyway.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
<-- 13 Foxtrot
Sure I would have been able to. I would have called in artillery, air and naval gun fire. While they were hunkered down in their bunkers I would have skipped accross the trenches.

I don't think they had too much of air fire and too far inland for naval fire back then.

I suppose next you'll be telling me that you don't think I would have actually skipped?

Skipping could help get you through the wire and over the mines; might confuse the enemy gunners long enough for you to assassinate the Kaiser and end the war by Christmas.

 

[Minjin]

Of course I would. We're just going to play some ball and party right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: Pocatello

Originally posted by: Whitecloak
if you think the trenches were bad, you should read up on the napoleonic wars

The American Civil War was bad too. Tens of thousands of men died in single day of combat. Many died later because of infected wounds.

Battle of The Somme with 146,431 allied dead and 623,907 wounded. If you count the German casualties over 1.2 million were either wounded or died.

the trenches were by far the worst:

The intensity of World War I trench warfare meant about 10% of the fighting soldiers were killed. This compared to 5% killed during the Second Boer War and 4.5% killed during World War II. For British and Dominion troops serving on the Western Front, the proportion of troops killed was 12.5%, while the total proportion of troops who became casualties (killed or wounded) was 56%. Considering that for every front-line infantryman there were about three soldiers in support (artillery, supply, medical, and so on), it was highly unlikely for a fighting soldier to survive the war without sustaining some form of injury. Indeed many soldiers were injured more than once during the course of their service.

Medical services were primitive and antibiotics had not yet been discovered. Relatively minor injuries could prove fatal through onset of infection and gangrene. The Germans recorded that 15% of leg wounds and 25% of arm wounds resulted in death, mainly through infection. The Americans recorded 44% of casualties who developed gangrene died. 50% of those wounded in the head died and 99% of those wounded in the abdomen died. 75% of wounds came from shell fire. The wound resulting from a shell fragment was usually more traumatic than a gunshot wound. A shell fragment would often introduce debris, making it more likely that the wound would become infected. These factors meant a soldier was three times more likely to die from a shell wound to the chest than from a gunshot wound. The blast from shell explosions could also kill by concussion. In addition to the physical effects of shell fire, there was the psychological damage. Men who had to endure prolonged bombardment would often suffer debilitating shell shock, a condition not well understood at the time (related to but distinct from post traumatic stress disorder).

As in many other wars, World War I's greatest killer was disease. Sanitary conditions in the trenches were quite poor, and common infections included dysentery, typhus, and cholera. Many soldiers suffered from parasites and related infections. Poor hygiene also led to fungal conditions, such as trench mouth and trench foot. Another common killer was exposure, since the temperature within a trench in the winter could easily fall below zero degrees Celsius (32 °F). Burial of the dead was usually a luxury that neither side could easily afford. The bodies would lie in no man's land until the front line moved, by which time the bodies were often unidentifiable. On some battlefields, such as at the Nek in Gallipoli, the bodies were not buried until after the war. On the Western Front, bodies continue to be found as fields are ploughed and building foundations dug.

 

[Iron Woode]

here's a cool video and it has been colourized:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...By9XJc&feature=related