What war you most interested in ?

[foxer 0]

?? Tell us why also.

[Hilandor 1]

Word war 1   life in the trenches must have been absolutely terrifying and i take my hat of to those soldiers

World war 2     because of the size and sheer scale of it, the way that women, men,  everyone had a job to do wether it be working in munitions factories, to the home gaurd  and the sheer size of celebrations when the war was won.

vietnam war   because it showed that no matter the military hardware available to soldiers, people who know the terrain stand a better chance, and becuase the most equiped side DIDNT win ( and no im not flaming)

Gulf War   was a showing of the latest modern day weapons etc and because there was news coverage as it happened , im too young for the others

And you missed the Falklands war, and again there was real footage as things happened, i can remember the build up and ships heading out of the naval dockyard 5 miles away with families waving to hundreds of sailors all stood on deck ( it was a thought provoking moment) plus it showed the UK's supremeness in fighting a war that they didnt start to protect a tiny peice of land and that was thousands of miles away and won so quick, and the damaged ships limping up the river back to the dockyard after it was over

[Wobble 1]

vietnam war   because it showed that no matter the military hardware available to soldiers, people who know the terrain stand a better chance

actually it shows that if your willing to throw your men in a meat grinder and your foe isnt, eventually you will win..

saying the VC knew the terrain better may be true.. but they still suffered some of the most horrendous k/d ratios in modern history from airstrikes and spec-ops.. so its not like they just kicing the shit out of their enemy.. their biggest offensive (tet) was one of the most complete and utter tactical failures in modern combat.. they lost every single position they tried to take oftin with 80% losses or higher..

.. they were just willing to suffer horrendous losses over an extended amount of time... willing to drag out the conflict.. they knew the US people were getting sick of the damn war and if they just held on long enough, kills or land taken wouldent matter, the americans would just leave.. and thats exactly what happened.

it also shows that no matter how good a military is, if the populace doesent support its actions it will have a very hard time..

[USSoldier11B 0]

I chose not to vote. I'm a military history buff and like to learn about all conflicts. (Most U.S. related anyway) Ancient warfare also facinates me. Oh, heck I'll vote Vietnam. Why? That is where U.S. Special Forces really developed. It was where modern U.S. spec ops was born. Those guys pulled off some crazy shit. I love to read about it. I'd recommend a certain book if I could remember the name of it. If anything valuable came out of Vietnam is was the refinement of unconventional warfare doctrine. Gen. Westmorland was totally a conventional forces kinda guy. He did not like MAC-V SOG,SF, or sniper tactics. One of the reasons we *lost the war.

*NVA achieved political objectives, but body count and collateral damage wise we creamed them.

[Hilandor 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ April 26 2002,12:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">it also shows that no matter how good a military is, if the populace doesent support its actions it will have a very hard time..<span id='postcolor'>

yes indeed, very true

[Damage Inc 0]

The Finnish winter war, because Finland kicked some Soviet ass

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Damage Inc @ April 27 2002,11:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Finnish winter war, because Finland kicked some Soviet ass          <span id='postcolor'>

Interesting that you should say that. Finland won the finish winter war as much as USA won in Vietnam

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">*NVA achieved political objectives, but body count and collateral damage wise we creamed them.

<span id='postcolor'>

Touchy, touchy! Quite a few Americans were also killed in vietnam...

Anyway, I am most interested in the recent wars in Yugoslavia and the history behind that. I find it fascinating how almost over night in a civilized European country neighbours start killing neighbours.

[Damage Inc 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 27 2002,12:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Damage Inc @ April 27 2002,11:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Finnish winter war, because Finland kicked some Soviet ass <span id='postcolor'>

Interesting that you should say that. Finland won the finish winter war as much as USA won in Vietnam <span id='postcolor'>

Finland won by preventing the Soviets from invading.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Damage Inc @ April 27 2002,12:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 27 2002,12:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Damage Inc @ April 27 2002,11:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Finnish winter war, because Finland kicked some Soviet ass          <span id='postcolor'>

Interesting that you should say that. Finland won the finish winter war as much as USA won in Vietnam <span id='postcolor'>

Finland won by preventing the Soviets from invading.<span id='postcolor'>

Finland surrendered and agreed to a Soviet peace proposal that utterly sucked for Finlands part. The Finns had to give up territory (Karelen for instance) and pay a shitload of money to the Soviets. In short a hard peace deal.

[Damage Inc 0]

Well that wasn't the winter war, you are incorrect.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Damage Inc @ April 27 2002,12:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well that wasn't the winter war, you are incorrect.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">On March 6, 1940, a Finnish delegation left for Moscow to discuss terms. The Finns prepared for another counter-offensive, and the Russians brought up more troops, but all was quiet. In some sectors of the line there were only a few Finns left where there had been whole units, and there was precious little ammunition. Then on March 13, 1940, it was all over; an armistice was signed. Had the Russians mounted just one more attack, they might have carried it all the way to Helsinki, but they had lost their nerve about the same time the Finns ran out of ammunition.

Under the treaty, Russia received Finland's second largest city, Viipuri, the port of Petsamo on the Arctic Ocean, the Hanko area, all of Lake Ladoga’s shores and the entire Karelian Isthmus, the home of 12 per cent of Finland's population. Finland gave up a total of 22,000 square miles. One Russian general remarked, "We have won enough ground to bury our dead." Khrushchev wrote, "Even in these most favorable conditions it was only after great difficulty and enormous losses that we were finally able to win. A victory at such a cost was actually a moral defeat." According to Khrushchev, 1.5 million men were sent to Finland and one million of them were killed. 1000 aircraft, 2300 tanks and armored cars and an enormous amount of other war materials were lost.

The people in the ceded area were given the right to remain with the Soviet Union or emigrate to Finland. Most if not all of the 450,000 people living in the region moved to Finland despite being left destitute and homeless.

<span id='postcolor'>

Form http://www.kaiku.com/winterwar.html

[Damage Inc 0]

Yeah but Finland took them back. For a while at least.

[Pete 1]

i voted other....and becouse the wars from the ancient times are intresting also...napoleon, romans, mongols...

im also very intrested in ww2 and ww1..mostly becouse of the sheer power of the armies of the time and how they wasted own soldiers to win just a few meters of land.

todays wars arent so intresting really...a lone jet in the sky bombing defenceless enemies...

[LordZach 0]

i've always been facinated with WW2. i guess it is because i feel it is where modern day warfare developed. air land and sea forces all coordinating together (more or less) to accomplish an objective.

[Hilandor 1]

yes indeed events such as d day landings that needed coordination of thousands of ships, artillery, bombers, and 10's of thousands of men.

[scout 0]

WWII. there were some of the most brilliant moves and battles and some of the horrendous and bloody ones.

really a show of tactics and strategy, cunning and shceming.

[Satchel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pete @ April 27 2002,13:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">todays wars arent so intresting really...a lone jet in the sky bombing defenceless enemies...<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly, that is why i have absolutely no interest in the Gulf War 2. In OFP it would be a boring scenario if recreated authetically, and who the heck would like to play the iraqy side in MP, with absolutely no chance to win and a totally unbalanced force relation at total disadvantage?

My interest goes not into playing mock-up real life scenarios, but rather hypothetical ones like at the times where the berlin wall was still up and HQ´s did play through defensive exercises to prepare for a soviet attack.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Damage Inc @ April 27 2002,12:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah but Finland took them back. For a while at least.<span id='postcolor'>

I know, I'm just yanking your chain

Finland did a really amazing thing there, holding up against a lot more soviets with a lot more hardware.

[scout 0]

u also forgot: very little brains. the soviet army was ruled by colonels then, after Stalin cleared the ranks.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ April 27 2002,16:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

Didnt we have this "greatest warrior of all times" just a while ago. Well as I said, I like leaders that "with barely anything do an incredible job". I did some research on that and I found a sort of battle which realy (as I think) was one of the most incredible ones in WWII. You need to read it... I mean the battle of Monte Cassino. It is incredible. (yes I know it is about germans but that is not why I chose it)

]A medium size description of the battle (made in UK)

Long Long Site about the battle of Monte Cassino

page for beginners

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Im thinkin WW2. because it was the world... at war... and it was the second time... so they werent quite as stupid about how they conducted it...

[KingBeast 0]

I would say both world wars because they were such massive affairs, full of strategical blunders and seemingly strategical myricals, many new discoveries and inventions and mostly the binding together of common man to fight for all they were worth.

Also some of the older battles pertaining to England/Britain.

And definately one of the most interesting wars for me is the Falklands. It was a modern show of how war works in this age, involving all elements. Air, Sea and ground forces. But most importantly, infantry were the main contributors. And it was a defeat of a larger and better equipped army that kind of proved that us British/Englanders are always willnig to put up a fight, even over the smallest of things if our people are involved.

(smallest of things meaning a small rocky island 8000 miles away from england)

[Aculaud 0]

World War 2, for a lot of the reasons that Hilandor said. Also, i guess i just find it to be the most interesting war i know about. Then again, i dont know nearly as much about any other war than i know about world war 2.

[rpc007 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 27 2002,11:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Touchy, touchy! Quite a few Americans were also killed in vietnam...<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, ~55-60,000, but if you consider we were in Vietnam for longer than WW2 lasted and the vietnemese lost an estimated 1,000,000 soldiers.....

[loopy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ April 28 2002,05:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And definately one of the most interesting wars for me is the Falklands. It was a modern show of how war works in this age, involving all elements. Air, Sea and ground forces. But most importantly, infantry were the main contributors. And it was a defeat of a larger and better equipped army that kind of proved that us British/Englanders are always willnig to put up a fight, even over the smallest of things if our people are involved.

(smallest of things meaning a small rocky island 8000 miles away from england)<span id='postcolor'>

I would say the Falklands as i was in training depot at the time and heaps of the boys were there and I knew quite a few of them that were at goose greene and some that didn`t make it back.

But also ww2 as a few of my rellies were involved with Arneham and d-day.