Combat choices

So basicly would you rather go in close combat with sword, axe, spear, knife etc, or more ranged combat, like muscets and shiie, or totaly crazy modern times where death can come from nowhere.

I'd definetly avoid WW1 lunacy (high casualties, easy to die).
Most likely I would pick medieval - open battles were not that common, mostly sieges, so you either hide inside the walls or camp outside the walls. And starve.

Ww2 to fight for saschas people

Medieval. Kiting european dogs with my horse archers

Napisao Tiger27, 13.11.2024 at 14:52

Ww2 to fight for saschas people

In WW2 I'd be in Bulgarian army, do absolutely nothing (commiting war crimes is optional) and when Soviets come surrender and switch sides at the very end of the war.

Napisao BLACKMETAL3199, 14.11.2024 at 08:54

Medieval. Kiting european dogs with my horse archers

Napisao Your Laki, 15.11.2024 at 07:40

Napisao BLACKMETAL3199, 14.11.2024 at 08:54

Medieval. Kiting european dogs with my horse archers

Modern easily, casualties are at an all time low, much higher chances of surviving, better medicine and above all at least you get supplied food on a regular basis.
And while death can come from everywhere, im sure its an easier death being blow up by a drone than it is getting hacked to bits by a peasant with an axe.

WW2, best of both worlds. No having to worry about fighting close quarters with axes and swords, but also no absolute horrors of mankind's military evolution weapons capable of launching 20+ laser guided missiles watching you through a thermal camo that can see you in thick woods of the modern era, no trenches of WW1 and Napoleonic is a bonus too, I don't know what I'd do though. I had family on both sides of the war, my great grandpa on Dad's side was a US Army engineer and on my mom's side there were 11th armata Italian soldiers.

Napisao Evic, 16.11.2024 at 02:19

Modern easily, casualties are at an all time low, much higher chances of surviving, better medicine and above all at least you get supplied food on a regular basis.
And while death can come from everywhere, im sure its an easier death being blow up by a drone than it is getting hacked to bits by a peasant with an axe.

Casualties are at an all time low for the first world countries that fought against 3rd world shit holes maybe. But peer and near peer conflicts have only just started beginning in the modern era, our only example now is the Russo Ukrainian war and that is not an all time low casualty war, there's estimates running for both sides at a million to nearly two million dead in higher estimates. Trench warfare is back with heavy shelling, soldiers getting trench foot, pneumonia, and suffering sepsis without access to hospitals like the first world war. The massive tank battles and air war of second world war. On top of this with modern military systems like night vision, thermals, and laser guided rockets as well as drones you have to worry about, and you're not guaranteed to be one of the fortunate units that deals with thermal and night vision equipment. So unless you're fighting in one of the worlds premier militaries that either has a small army but good economy and therefore ability and desire to equip well, like Germany or UK, or a huge army with big budget like US, you are fucked. Besides the point DOD is finding out that materiel quantity is a big factor too in wars of attrition so the longer a war goes the less likely you'll have good equipment.

Napisao Stealthcombo, 29.11.2024 at 03:29

Those numbers are heavily inflated, most sources dont put total KIA in ukraine over 500k, and thats with 2 countries that have a combined population of nearly 200 million, for 3 years of heavy combat thats still historically low rates of KIA.