What war do you find the most interesting Veeky Forums?

What war do you find the most interesting Veeky Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_War
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_War
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cape_Matapan
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

WW2 pacific theater.

100 Years War

To be frank none of them.

First War of Kappel

Basically a bunch of Swiss dudes and another bunch of Swiss dudes were at war each other, and instead of fighting the two armies drank beer on a hill.

I've always had a fascination with the Peloponesean war myself.

If I may ask, why the Pacific theater? I always found it a bit dull myself, what with how badly Japan was outclassed by the U.S. once they got their proverbial legs under them.

Ww1 and the Polish Muscovite war desu.

First World War for all the sweeping political changes.

WW1
Only war that I can think of where changes on the tactical level of battle had a larger (much, much larger) influence than changes on the strategic level. The invention of Infiltration tactics essentially took the geniuses of the world combined before they were finally implemented near the war's end.

The football war

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_War

1. World's largest and most complex naval battles of all time.
2. The Japanese high command is interesting to read about.

>what with how badly Japan was outclassed by the U.S. once they got their proverbial legs under them.

And what, Germany wasn't ridiculously outclassed trying to fight Britain, the US, and Russia at the same time? There were no cool naval battles in the European theater because the Royal Navy was overpowered and basically prevented Germany from doing anything.

probably the thirty years war, it's such a fucking mess

>And what, Germany wasn't ridiculously outclassed trying to fight Britain, the US, and Russia at the same time?

A) Not to the same degree that Japan was outclassed. You had German advances for roughly 3 years, followed by 3 years of giving it all back up again. Japan had about 6 months worth of advances and then lost the initiative and never regained it, never had the opportunity to regain it, an assessement shared by their own chief strategist.

B) There was no real necessity to fight all three at once, barring Nazi ideological stupidity. And until the fronts joined up in 45, you can really treat the seperate fronts of the ETO+MTO as separate wars that can be analyzed more or less on their own.

>There were no cool naval battles in the European theater because the Royal Navy was overpowered and basically prevented Germany from doing anything.

You had an almost classic counterinsurgency campaign at sea, not even WW1 really had anything like it. And the MTO, at least before the Americans show up, has quite a bit of interesting cut and parry, what with the British unable to actually commit their massive material advantage to one small theater, and the Italians unable to commit most of their fleet for lack of fuel.


But yeah, if you do like naval battles, I can see how you'd dig the PTO. Still, so many of them are so one-sided, and it's hard to imagine how any degree of Japanese success in them could have actually altered the war in any material fashion.

Not that user but the Pacific Theater was definitely one of my most favorite theaters for naval battles too.

Even though the USN gained the advantage exponentially as the war went on, 1942 was pretty interesting for naval clashes that weren't too one-sided.

The Japanese had some tactical victories in places like Coral Sea, Savo Island, Tassafronga, Java Sea, Santa Cruz, and first Guadalcanal. They just almost never translated to strategical victories in which I do agree that they probably wouldn't have altered the war. And while it was inevitable that the USN would grow into monstrous industrial power, the USN were still pretty pressed for ships in that first year, as seen towards the end of the Guadalcanal campaign where the USN was down to one operational carrier or even when they were forced to throw in their only 2 new battleships into battle because they had started to run out of available ships for surface action.

I've decided I need to learn more about Italy's involvement in the war. That might make it more interesting.

>Start reading about Zara-class cruisers
>"Huh, I wonder what happened to them."
>They all got completely slaughtered by British battleships in a single battle.
>They couldn't even fight back besides firing their AA guns in defiance at the heavily armored ships gunning them down
>huh

Thirty Years War is probably the one i find most intresting but with that said the Paraguayan War is another really interesting one that is pretty underrated.

"Who's superior now, fuckers?"

it was truly a glorious era for the american navy

the 30 years war

best day of my life

hey Japan had a good starting point in the war

I like ww2 cause tanks n sheet

I'll also give the Third Sacred War and honorable mention

Favorite? American Civil War for how much it changed the course of country.
First War of Barbary is based too.

Favorite? American Civil War for how much it changed the course of country.
First War of Barbary is based too.

this posting party is not based however

What are the other two Sacred Wars?

One where everyone went and shit on some bandit village.

Two was just Athens and Sparta dick waving.

The one in which we are in right now.

WW2 is also pretty interesting.

The Cold War

Yes, not really an "actual" war, but all the conflicts and military programs and the arms race give me a bit of a stiffy desu

>WW1
>genius strategic commanders

no

7 years war.
It was a classy time, and the shadow of the 30 years war seemed to keep people somewhat more civil.

It was global in scope, and saw France fucking up left and right since Louis XV was no Louis XIV. It saw the rise the of the Eternal Anglo, and the power of their sexy sexy navy.

It really has something for everyone, during the golden age of colonialism.

Didn't know this was a thing. As a crazy about football person, this appeals to me

>7 years war.
>Saw the rise of the Eternal Anglo.
>Saw the rise of the Eternal Teuton
Jesus Christ.

How did Poland go from happening to Hitler's bitch?

I think the viking wars, conquest of England, Sven Forkbeard etc. are really interesting, also all the old internal wars between the Scandinavian countries are really interesting although a bit obscure

playing Batman of nations.
they didn't finish off their enemies, when they had the chance.

>no mention of the GOAT modern history conflict

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_War

>Libya has tanks, artillery, APCs, attack jets and 3x as many troops
>gets utterly routed by a bunch of guys in pickup trucks

>Trying to fight a battle with the Royal Navy in WW2
What the fuck were they thinking?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cape_Matapan

>this
Also, +1 for Prague defenestration picture

Rhodesian Bush War for sure.

>dat Metal Gear Solid aesthetic

The Cold War was the most significant conflict in human history.

Not only did it ideologically dwarf every other petty squabble between kings and governments, but the armament of both belligerents meant conflict would potentially involve complete annihilation of all parties involved.

Every single family member of mine in the royal navy during ww2 died, every single one in the army survived. Weird eh.

The beginning of The Great War.
Cause it changed how we fight how we invade. The moment in time where war stopped being that romantic gentlemen war and it became dirty and destructive more than ever before.

Still Erich Ludendorff in the battle of Liege was a god, but overall WW1 was a stratigic disaster.

I think the evolution of uniforms through WWI is the most interesting example of this. Everyone went from colorful and/or frilly dress uniforms to more practical battle uniforms and metal helmets.

>The moment in time where war stopped being that romantic gentlemen war and it became dirty and destructive more than ever before.
It was always destructive, WWI just had the most starry eye children being sent to battle.

was this a pun?

I wonder how WW1 would play out if military leaders embraced and adapted to modern warfare from the start, instead of clinging to outdated 19th century tactics. What if the countries entered the war with the tactics of 1918?

War of the Austrian Succession, casue muh hertiage n shit

none. war is incredibly stupid and never justified

That doesn't mean you can't appreciate the genius behind military tactics and weapons.

The second punic war is by far my favorite, it's like reading a fairytale. The war almost destroyed the roman empire which would've changed everything in europe ever since.
It does if you're a hippie idiot

Yeah, it's like the origin story of the two biggest villains of the 19th and 20th century.

Eastern Front

The italian wars of the mid-16th century.
So many important and influential people in that specific time in history; Francis of France, Charles V, Henry VIII, Suleiman the magnificent, and many others.
Pic semi-related.

Easily this as well, Peter H. Winter's book Europe's Tragedy got me into it in a big way.

Also the Toyota War for its batshit tactics as an honourable mention, as well as the Six Day War and Yom Kippur Wars for similar reasons.