we have this thread a lot but....

[Lev Peshkov]

ur chances of dying in war are so low

here was ur chance of dying first day of the somme

muh cannon fodder

reminder the somme was the bloodies battle in human hisotry adn you would most likely survive it

oy vey goyim!! you will die if you go to war!!!! dont serve your country!!!! you may break free from the jewish matrix!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

inb4

 

[Spartacus1-]

90 million world war 2 casualties mirin from their graves right now.

 

[Deleted member 6538]

hi monsieur peshkev

 

[BigBiceps]

More like our grandfathers chances of dying. And that's just one battle, one day among many others. Our chances in modern warfare would be very high as regular infantry. The weaponry has improved, and modern superpowers have more of arms arsenal than ww1 superpowers did. In Vietnam War, US dropped more bombs to just Vietnam than there were dropped together in ENTIRETY of WW2.

 

[Lev Peshkov]

90 million world war 2 casualties mirin from their graves right now.

you have to look at them objetively

where they died and what percetn cahcne of syriving the battle/ invasion/ blitz

 

[Lev Peshkov]

More like our grandfathers chances of dying. And that's just one battle, one day among many others. Our chances in modern warfare would be very high as regular infantry. The weaponry has improved, and modern superpowers have more of arms arsenal than ww1 superpowers did. In Vietnam War, US dropped more bombs to Vietnam than there were dropped together in ENTIRETY of WW2.
View attachment 776985

tbh i doubt

it will be the same

as the weapons were brand new adn precise in ww1 and sicne each side had similar wepons it was like a catch22

i think if a war happens there will be a catch22 trech warfare style tbh

and ofc military tech will basicalyl eb obsolete because how easy it is to destroy electronics

 

[Spartacus1-]

you have to look at them objetively

where they died and what percetn cahcne of syriving the battle/ invasion/ blitz

They still died due to war. War isn't necessarily just guns and knives but also the famine and diseases it brings with it. And a lot of bad shit.

 

[Lev Peshkov]

They still died due to war. War isn't necessarily just guns and knives but also the famine and diseases it brings with it. And a lot of bad shit.

if you look at it as global deaths of the war then like the 90 mil total

90000000/240000000000

0.0375% chance of globala death in the war

thats why it is better to look at the chance of actually dying in any said battle or time period

 

[BigBiceps]

tbh i doubt

it will be the same

as the weapons were brand new adn precise in ww1 and sicne each side had similar wepons it was like a catch22

i think if a war happens there will be a catch22 trech warfare style tbh

and ofc military tech will basicalyl eb obsolete because how easy it is to destroy electronics

The guns didn't have so much range, the tanks were not very agile and were easily destroyable with molotov cocktail or even a treetrunk. The aircrafts could be warded off with anti-air guns. Now guns have massive range with immense accuracy and rapid fire rate while being lighter and don't overheat or jam easy, we have more bullets and bomb shells than we can shoot, tanks are agile and deal immense destruction. Aircrafts go over supersonic speeds and destroy enemy targets without them even noticing.
War is way more brutal nowadays, sadly.

 

[Spartacus1-]

if you look at it as global deaths of the war then like the 90 mil total

90000000/240000000000

View attachment 776994

0.0375% chance of globala death in the war

thats why it is better to look at the chance of actually dying in any said battle or time period

In their respective countries, the damage was pretty noticeable. Only 1/3 boys survived in Russia during world war 2.

 

[Lev Peshkov]

The guns didn't have so much range, the tanks were not very agile and were easily destroyable with molotov cocktail or even a treetrunk. The aircrafts could be warded off with anti-air guns. Now guns have massive range with immense accuracy and rapid fire rate while being lighter and don't overheat or jam easy, we have more bullets and bomb shells than we can shoot, tanks are agile and deal immense destruction. Aircrafts go over supersonic speeds and destroy enemy targets without them even noticing.
War is way more brutal nowadays, sadly.

i agree completely

however strategies eveolve and if the death rate is super high it ius the job of the army to bring them down

super interesting thing i found out recently when reading up about the falkland war ( a proper war between to countries : UK and Argentina)

now the royal mariens suppered 27 deaths from 3rd commando brogad which has 3500 men

meaning in that wasr you had a 0.8% of death

pretty low and these are commandos fighting a proper military and commandos

i think as armies becoem stronger and stronger techniques eveolve to make it harder to kill the enemy ( eg body armour, better feild strategies, more accurate artillery, etc)

SO i thoerise the deaths would be a round the same as ww1 tbh but the only sure way to tell is to actually have war jfl

 

[Lev Peshkov]

In their respective countries, the damage was pretty noticeable. Only 1/3 boys survived in Russian during world war 2.

ye ik man

it was brutal for the red army

still 75% chance of suriving the war

i think that is a fair enough chance but its due to the stupid commie tactics

shiet weapons, shit generals ( see the great purge)

and the stupid tactic not allowing retreat and finally the power of the wermacht blitzkrieg tactics

 

[BigBiceps]

i agree completely

however strategies eveolve and if the death rate is super high it ius the job of the army to bring them down

super interesting thing i found out recently when reading up about the falkland war ( a proper war between to countries : UK and Argentina)

now the royal mariens suppered 27 deaths from 3rd commando brogad which has 3500 men

meaning in that wasr you had a 0.8% of death

pretty low and these are commandos fighting a proper military and commandos

i think as armies becoem stronger and stronger techniques eveolve to make it harder to kill the enemy ( eg body armour, better feild strategies, more accurate artillery, etc)

SO i thoerise the deaths would be a round the same as ww1 tbh but the only sure way to tell is to actually have war jfl

Yeah, well falkland incident can barely even be called a war. Better example would be for example Syrian Civil war with nearly 500k deaths or Gulf War, which lead to major casualties to Iraq, because the coalition was just better equipped.

 

[Lev Peshkov]

Yeah, well falkland incident can barely even be called a war. Better example would be for example Syrian Civil war with nearly 500k deaths or Gulf War, which lead to major casualties to Iraq, because the coalition was just better equipped.

I will look into these wars and find the percentage deaths etc

 

[Lev Peshkov]

@BigBiceps thoughts?

 

[BigBiceps]

View attachment 777025
View attachment 777026

View attachment 777027

@BigBiceps thoughts?

US troops, but look at the iraqi numbers. US soldiers of course didn't have to sacrifice their lives.

 

[HumidVent]

ye ik man

it was brutal for the red army

View attachment 777005

still 75% chance of suriving the war

i think that is a fair enough chance but its due to the stupid commie tactics

shiet weapons, shit generals ( see the great purge)

and the stupid tactic not allowing retreat and finally the power of the wermacht blitzkrieg tactics

The communists were responsible for winning the war.

 

[Lev Peshkov]

US troops, but look at the iraqi numbers. US soldiers of course didn't have to sacrifice their lives.

ill look at the iraq deaths

but tbh

the iraq deaths are due to many things

1) shit equipemtns ( outadated mainly)

2) OUTDATED STRATEGIES ( this was the main killer tbh)

i cant realy find a figure for the total troops but i found out he had 120k at one point so we will work with that

82% chance of surival , still pretty hight but compared to the americans absolute slaughter tbh

 

[Lev Peshkov]

The communists were responsible for winning the war.

i am russian and this isnt true JFL

red army took berlin however never forget britian mainly had worn down the wermacht to such a point which allowed this to be a reality

with help from britains allies they invaded the weakened wermacht and took euorpe back within a year

 

[HumidVent]

i am russian and this isnt true JFL

red army took berlin however never forget britian mainly had worn down the wermacht to such a point which allowed this to be a reality

with help from britains allies they invaded the weakened wermacht and took euorpe back within a year

You being Russian doesn't mean anything. All reputable historians agree that the Soviet Union was largely responsible for winning the war. Of course the other allied countries also helped and their contributions should not go unnoticed. The Soviets could not have won the war without the help of the Allies however the Soviets did majority of the work.

Over the years there has been a lot of propaganda and downplaying of the role the Soviet Union played in the war. Because of the cold war no one in the west wanted to give credit to the Soviets which were considered their enemies at the time.