Against The Odds

Mitchapalooza

Guest
I couldn't watch the Pacific. I tried but it just didnt do it for me. Not to mention I never liked the pacific WW2 campaign. Idk why. Im just obsessed with the European campaign. Band of Brothers was phenomenal. I've seen it in full like 10+ times.

Sent from Cuba
 

Desperado34

New member
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
17,933
Liked Posts:
6,889
Location:
Illinois
I read it, along with "Helmet for My Pillow" and the other books that "the Pacific" was based on. Great books but shitty show (they wasted a huge opportunity to tell that story). The stuff in "With the Old Breed" about Sugar Loaf and the Shuri line was seriously fucked up.

Another good book about Sugar Loaf is Killing Ground on Okinawa: The Battle for Sugar Loaf
Thanks for reccomendation. I'll look into it.

That part bout the decaying japenese solider and the guys falling into that pit during the rain with bodies coming out n maggots all over- honestly sounded like being in a pit of hell. best horror book I read was Sledge's story. Holy god
 

Desperado34

New member
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
17,933
Liked Posts:
6,889
Location:
Illinois
I couldn't watch the Pacific. I tried but it just didnt do it for me. Not to mention I never liked the pacific WW2 campaign. Idk why. Im just obsessed with the European campaign. Band of Brothers was phenomenal. I've seen it in full like 10+ times.

Sent from Cuba
You read that book I'm talking bout n you'll think 100000x differently.

The Pacific, in terms of total brutality, was worse than the European front.
 

Ares

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
42,492
Liked Posts:
35,203
You read that book I'm talking bout n you'll think 100000x differently.

The Pacific, in terms of total brutality, was worse than the European front.

I actually forgot about that "The Pacific" thing they made..... I got through like 6 or 7 episodes and then stopped watching it.

It seemed really disconnected and it was hard to stay engaged with that one like with Band of Brothers.
 

KittiesKorner

CCS Donator
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Jan 4, 2011
Posts:
48,049
Liked Posts:
36,977
Location:
Chicago
The European front was "sexier" (not least because the Soviets had weakened the Germans to the point that they couldn't win by the time we invaded Normandy) but if you really want to know what World War II was about you should learn about the Pacific campaign.

The Pacific show was just bad and didn't present the story well at all.
 

Scoot26

Administrator
Staff member
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Jun 25, 2010
Posts:
41,418
Liked Posts:
28,518
WWII is an interesting war with tons of great documentaries and then you have Band of Brothers and movies and then there is the Nazi party and all the Holocaust stuff.

I feel like I burned out on it a bit when I was a teenager.... I used to watch History channel all day and if anyone remembers History channel prior to their new shows like Pawn Stars and American Pickers..... all they ran for long stretches of time was WWII stuff or Holocaust documentaries.

Not that WWII is no longer interesting to me, I wanna check this out, but man it is a flooded market of material.

I guess that's part of the reason I have always had an interest in WWI.... lol its such an uncovered subject in school, on TV, in movies, video games, documentaries.

Its not as flashy as WWII and the war wasn't as long and didn't have a villain like the Nazi party, but I always wish it was covered better.

Probably the #1 reason it isn't covered as much. The Japanese were a good villain as well, but just didn't do as much as the Nazis. Even playing video games, every WWII video game that is based on Europe always seemed a lot better than any Pacific Theater game. Band of Brothers is leagues better than The Pacific.

I recently started reading up more on WWI, I had initial interest in high school and got down the basics of it. We actually covered it extensively in my freshmen years social studies classes (which combined with a Literature class) as we read All Quiet on the Western Front.

But WWI is not that exciting of a war to cover in media as it was essentially a 3 year stalemate until the Russian Empire collapsed and European citizens grew tire of war and turned on many of the Triple Entente governments. Of course Americans will tell you they turned the tide of the war, but eh, not really.. The British and French were finally making progress, Italy switched sides and the Ottomon Empire was collapsing. But they were fighting an outdated model of warfare and they essentially sat in trenches for months or even years. Other than telling the horrific story of wars, there really is not much of a narrative to that. You do have the story of all the technological advances and how airplanes were really featured, but it just doesn't carry the same narrative that World War II has.
 

KittiesKorner

CCS Donator
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Jan 4, 2011
Posts:
48,049
Liked Posts:
36,977
Location:
Chicago
I think the reason is much simpler: America didn't enter World War I until 1917, and lost relatively a lot fewer men than we did in World War II.

World War I is obviously still a white-hot topic in Europe. Look at the recent contretemps between Max Hastings and Niall Ferguson about it. Max Hastings has written some of the best books about WW2, the Korean War, and the Spanish Civil War that I've read so far btw.
 

Ares

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
42,492
Liked Posts:
35,203
Probably the #1 reason it isn't covered as much. The Japanese were a good villain as well, but just didn't do as much as the Nazis. Even playing video games, every WWII video game that is based on Europe always seemed a lot better than any Pacific Theater game. Band of Brothers is leagues better than The Pacific.

I recently started reading up more on WWI, I had initial interest in high school and got down the basics of it. We actually covered it extensively in my freshmen years social studies classes (which combined with a Literature class) as we read All Quiet on the Western Front.

But WWI is not that exciting of a war to cover in media as it was essentially a 3 year stalemate until the Russian Empire collapsed and European citizens grew tire of war and turned on many of the Triple Entente governments. Of course Americans will tell you they turned the tide of the war, but eh, not really.. The British and French were finally making progress, Italy switched sides and the Ottomon Empire was collapsing. But they were fighting an outdated model of warfare and they essentially sat in trenches for months or even years. Other than telling the horrific story of wars, there really is not much of a narrative to that. You do have the story of all the technological advances and how airplanes were really featured, but it just doesn't carry the same narrative that World War II has.

Here is a question I always have that I have yet to find an answer to.... what was WWI fighting like prior to the trenches?

The trenches were not built before the war obviously, so while trench warfare took over, it wasn't how they fought at the beginning.

People say they fought an outdated model of warfare, which is true to a large degree, but it was not the Civil War/Napoleonic style lines of battle where they stood in formations and launched volleys at one another as far as I know. If they did fight like this at any point with bolt action rifles that would be fascinating to me.

I think there are more stories to WWI to be told, but they tend to be overlooked because WWII is so much sexier lol
 

Mitchapalooza

Guest
You read that book I'm talking bout n you'll think 100000x differently.

The Pacific, in terms of total brutality, was worse than the European front.

oh yeah I know, the Pacific seemed a lot worse to fight in. Vietnam seemed like the fucking scariest IMO, but for some reason I don't know it just doesn't intrigue me like Europe does.

I also looooove the Russians in WW2, they did so much and no one talks about it in America (for obvious reasons).

I'm gonna download that new Stalingrad movie and watch it tonight. I don't mind subtitles at all.
 

Scoot26

Administrator
Staff member
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Jun 25, 2010
Posts:
41,418
Liked Posts:
28,518
Here is a question I always have that I have yet to find an answer to.... what was WWI fighting like prior to the trenches?

The trenches were not built before the war obviously, so while trench warfare took over, it wasn't how they fought at the beginning.

People say they fought an outdated model of warfare, which is true to a large degree, but it was not the Civil War/Napoleonic style lines of battle where they stood in formations and launched volleys at one another as far as I know. If they did fight like this at any point with bolt action rifles that would be fascinating to me.

I think there are more stories to WWI to be told, but they tend to be overlooked because WWII is so much sexier lol

Trench warfare was used in the Civil War (they also still used lines). The Russian Japanese War featured them as well. It became a trench warfare war due to the advances in technology that they hadn't accounted for in tactics. They still used line matchup in WWI (Though not like we see in say the Napoleon Wars or Revolution War, but it was essentially march and run at each other with our guns shooting instead of standing in a line waiting for orders like older wars) , so sent a bunch of men out to rush a line, but the defensive mechanisms (accurate artillery, chemical warfare, machine guns) just mowed down lines of men running towards the opponent. The sides then dug in and fought from the trenches which just led to the massive stalemate. (you hear the term "no man's land" because you were essentially a dead man if you walked those grounds as you'd be mowed down.

Of course technological changes led to that changing but they were still slow to adapt tactics.... Tanks were very useful in trench warfare, bombs from planes got them out of the trenches, but all powers had these weapons in some way so there was still stalemate and of course the fact that they didn't know how to exactly use all these technologies they were bringing about in WWI. You see the major difference in WWII.. Hitler's Blitzkreig is evident of a change in tactics.
 

Scoot26

Administrator
Staff member
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Jun 25, 2010
Posts:
41,418
Liked Posts:
28,518
oh yeah I know, the Pacific seemed a lot worse to fight in. Vietnam seemed like the fucking scariest IMO, but for some reason I don't know it just doesn't intrigue me like Europe does.

I also looooove the Russians in WW2, they did so much and no one talks about it in America (for obvious reasons).

I'm gonna download that new Stalingrad movie and watch it tonight. I don't mind subtitles at all.

What movie is that?
 

Mitchapalooza

Guest
Here is a question I always have that I have yet to find an answer to.... what was WWI fighting like prior to the trenches?

The trenches were not built before the war obviously, so while trench warfare took over, it wasn't how they fought at the beginning.

People say they fought an outdated model of warfare, which is true to a large degree, but it was not the Civil War/Napoleonic style lines of battle where they stood in formations and launched volleys at one another as far as I know. If they did fight like this at any point with bolt action rifles that would be fascinating to me.

I think there are more stories to WWI to be told, but they tend to be overlooked because WWII is so much sexier lol

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't America the first country to use cover in battle? Like the British or whoever would be in a line and we'd just take cover and slaughter them? I forget where I read that but does anyone know when that old style of fighting stopped? I can't imagine fighting like that. Just seems stupid to me.
 

Scoot26

Administrator
Staff member
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Jun 25, 2010
Posts:
41,418
Liked Posts:
28,518
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't America the first country to use cover in battle? Like the British or whoever would be in a line and we'd just take cover and slaughter them? I forget where I read that but does anyone know when that old style of fighting stopped? I can't imagine fighting like that. Just seems stupid to me.

We weren't the first, but we adopted that style to help defeat the British. Usually milita fought like that while the Contential Army still stood in lines for battle. Featured a lot in the movie The Patriot. However tactics did change and the Army fought less conventional over time.
 

Mitchapalooza

Guest
[video=youtube;_Da3EgZUA0Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Da3EgZUA0Y[/video]

this one scoot
 

KittiesKorner

CCS Donator
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Jan 4, 2011
Posts:
48,049
Liked Posts:
36,977
Location:
Chicago
I also looooove the Russians in WW2, they did so much and no one talks about it in America (for obvious reasons).

this is true. Sadly, a lot of that had to do with the "not one step back" policy where, if you retreated, you were shot by the NKVD commissar. The SS and Wehrmacht did that too but not as much and not until later.

Antony Beevor wrote some great books on the Red Army in WW2 -- "Stalingrad" and "the Battle for Berlin". The story of the 900-day siege of Leningrad is also pretty fucked up.
 

Ares

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
42,492
Liked Posts:
35,203
this is true. Sadly, a lot of that had to do with the "not one step back" policy where, if you retreated, you were shot by the NKVD commissar. The SS and Wehrmacht did that too but not as much and not until later.

Antony Beevor wrote some great books on the Red Army in WW2 -- "Stalingrad" and "the Battle for Berlin". The story of the 900-day siege of Leningrad is also pretty fucked up.

Now there is a story I would like to learn more about.... no one ever talks about Leningrad....its always like "Ah yeah, Russkies had it tough, they managed to win in Stalingrad and then it was all ass kicking and bubble gum till they hit Berlin"
 

KittiesKorner

CCS Donator
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Jan 4, 2011
Posts:
48,049
Liked Posts:
36,977
Location:
Chicago
Now there is a story I would like to learn more about.... no one ever talks about Leningrad....its always like "Ah yeah, Russkies had it tough, they managed to win in Stalingrad and then it was all ass kicking and bubble gum till they hit Berlin"

it was horrific. A lot of cannibalism. Almost 1.5 million of 3 million died.

People may find my book recommendations pretentious but they can **** off.

Harrison Salisbury's "the 900 Days" is a great account.
 

Dogstar

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
2,415
Liked Posts:
1,155
Location:
NW Suburbs
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Northwestern Wildcats
  2. Wisconsin Badgers
Another good WWI movie
(If you can forgive the Canadian perspective)

Passchendaele
[video=youtube;zJZttzblHFQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJZttzblHFQ[/video]
 

Top