Who would Veeky Forums say was the most terrifying soldier in the history of war?

Who would Veeky Forums say was the most terrifying soldier in the history of war?

For me, it would be the Imperialist Japanese soldier during the Second World War. Men with a cause, oft willing to die for that cause. That factor, combined with knowledge of the terrain, use of modern weaponry and training in ambush strategies, makes them terrifying in my opinion.

It's the Japanese, but only because he is a blindly fanatical brute who sees their fellow men as chattels. The mongoloid is without honour and empathy, and only has enough room in his mind for Imperial propaganda.

Jap
>a cannibalistic subhuman that has no concept of mercy, honor, or commonweal of humanity that might hinder the efforts of western troops. a killing machine that only exists to fight and die so that his divine emperor may extended his tyranical grip over asia and pacific

Agree with the first half of that. The second half, you can take back to /pol/.

Terrifying depends on the point of view. Full plated armoured conquistadors of the late 15th are classy for us, but for a native in the south americas, i'd say it was a little more spooky.

In that perspective, Assyrians or Aztecs were a good deal terrifying because if you got into their hands not only was it very likely you were in for a terrible day, but the stories you might've heard of them would accentuate the fear tenfold.

Japs for sure, throughout ww2. I mean did you ever see the samurai armor? They looked like fuckin deamons!

Also I'd think it's a fair assumption to point out mongols or huns or even some norsman vikings. Raiders like these guys definitely stroke fear into people on the battlefield.

If you also wana include sans-culottes during the French Revolution. I know they wernt warriors but when i mass number and armed they were known to tear and claw at faces of those they rioted against. No doubt that French army was scared to put these revolutionaries down.

I know it's meme, but Spartans

...

(OP)
Ambush tactics? Tell me more...

1942 warhammer?

Don't forget
>regularly btfo with k/d ratio of 1:100

Would you rather be a German soldier in the Eastern front or an American soldier in the Pacific, during the Second World War?

American, much better chance of survival.
Japs were actually pretty awful at killing Americans, of the millions sent to the Pacific less than 200k died there, that includes all the submariners, sailors, soldiers, pilots and marines.
The Russians got pretty good at killing or at least horribly maiming Germans, however.

Definitly American. At least you will be constantly well supplied, can't say the same for the Germans.

>Americans actually believe this

>would you rather face partisans and an actual army or would you face starving gooks in emperor mandated starvation posts
geez what a hard decision

-

The Finnish Sniper.

I'm sure the Marines were so overwhelmed with sympathy for the Chinese that it was worse than dying themselves.

Mongols?

They were pretty scary no?

Can you into simple maths?

It's ~10million (Japs) vs ~22 million.

Japs killed 20x more civilians than Allied, they also doubled their military kill count, they killed 2 for every one of theirs that died.

I mean put it into this perspective, America lost many, many, many more men than Japan, but much less assets, Japan lost many many many more assets but much less loss of life.

The Japs killed more military than the US put into the Pacific war.

>America lost many, many, many more men than Japan

Am I being trolled? The ALLIES lost more men than Japan did, the vast majority of those being Chinese. America's KIA, MIA were considerably smaller than Japanese KIA, MIA in the Pacific Theater.

>maths

English/Australian poster detected

Most of the people they killed were Chinese. That was the point that he was making. Japs sucked at killing Americans, not killing in general.

>I want to be on the side which overwhelmed the Japanese 2:1 and lost about the same amount of casualties


>America's KIA, MIA were considerably smaller than Japanese KIA, MIA in the Pacific Theater.

This surely has nothing to do with the fact that there were 6 other nations not including America?

Yeah there was some hyperbole, but I mean you are literally arguing the fact that America is better than Japan, when Japan literally BTFO 7 nations solo. Yeah, they lost the war, they secured more damage when alone than any other nation in the war. The only thing you can say abasing Japan is that they lost the war, they fought an impeccable war though. Their only problem was the high end decisions, you cannot say they didn't do well though.

>not backing up China while Japan ravages them is Chinese fault, not "allies".

but is it really an accomplishment or challenge to kill chinese?

>killed millions of Chinese armed with swords and sharp sticks
woah so tough dude

>literally only sold merchandise yet takes all credit for 'winning' the war
Right back at cha, friend.

>This surely has nothing to do with the fact that there were 6 other nations not including America?
It has to do with the fact that Americans were better equipped, better fed, more innovative and had superior tactics. Essentially they were better soldiers. The Pacific War after Midway was just a long chain of defeats for Japan.

>when Japan literally BTFO 7 nations solo
Except they didn't 'BTFO' anyone. Killing people != defeating nations. War is not Call of Duty.

> you cannot say they didn't do well though.
They really didn't. Despite their militarism and legacy of fanaticism they were poor at developing & incorporating new technologies & improvements into their armed forces. They made inferior weapons, tanks & planes, had inferior doctrines like Kamikaze which were ineffective & inefficient and strategically they made the worst decisions of perhaps any power in WW2 besides maybe Italy.

Yeah I mean, you can say anything you want. Their military kill count was still higher than The whole allies combined, that is literally my point which you cannot refute, they were better at killing and I would rather be on the side better at killing then the side which 'wins'.

>that argument
Kek, you can simply not post, right?

>It has to do with the fact that Americans were better equipped, better fed, more innovative and had superior tactics. Essentially they were better soldiers. The Pacific War after Midway was just a long chain of defeats for Japan.

I will call you on this shit though, they were better merchants they were not better fighters, they didn't fight, they sold and watched.

The Japanese and maybe the Russians were the best fighters of WWII, it's simply indisputable.

And this is literally the point OP wanted to make with this thread, you can simply not post, you know?

No. Chiang Managed to kill over a million Chinese people preemptively.

> they didn't fight, they sold and watched.
Are you not familiar with the entire Pacific Theater or what? Who do you think it was that took Guadalcanal, the Marshall Islands, Iwo Jima & Okinawa?

>Their military kill count was still higher than The whole allies combined
Surely you're not braindead enough to understand why this isn't a good metric for deciding the most effective armed forces?

>Surely you're not braindead enough to understand why this isn't a good metric for deciding the most effective armed forces?
Are you literally retarded.

Read the question OP proposed. It's got nothing to do with being effective armed force, it's about being a fierce force, which Japan directly qualifies as as they came out out numbered and they achieved more kills.

Simply stop posting, you are getting nowhere. We get it, you like Battlefield 1941.

I heard Canadians developed a pretty terrifying reputation during ww1. Their trench raiding was feared by germans.

>directly qualifies as as they came out out numbered and they achieved more kills
Doesn't seem like a great way to measure 'fierceness'. Rome routinely fought campaigns like that but they're hardly the most bloodthirsty or terrifying soldiers of the ancient world.

I really can't believe you are being this offensively illiterate, it must be bait but I'm compelled.

So first>an American soldier in the Pacific
I don't think you can actually read a reply chain and work out what someone was actually talking about

Pic related is the actual breakdown. Anyone can kill millions of Chinese when you are an industrialised nation and they are a group of squabbling warlord states.

>not better fighters, they didn't fight, they sold and watched
.t Tojo

That would explain why the casualty numbers were so lopsided to the Japanese in the island campaign. Its not as if they suffered more casualties then the US on each island bar one or two.

Sorry to tell you this but most of the muh terrifying Canadian troops-legends were invented after the war by Cannuck nationalists.

I think Aztec warriors were way more terrifying than some malnourished japs.

Assyrians.

Or any of the "murder the whole settlement" people.

Mongols, Timur etc.

>Sorry to tell you this but most of the muh terrifying Canadian troops-legends were invented after the war by Cannuck nationalists.

>Kitcheners Woods was the greatest act of the war.
>Marshall fucking Foch

>Anyone can kill millions of Chinese if you just sit back and watch.

As everyone's been explaining to you, most of their kills were against the Chinese who were so fucking inept that it was basically a slaughter.

If you weigh in how many casualties the Americans inflicted against the Japanese versus the casualties the Japanese inflicted against the Americans, you'll find that the Americans vastly outmatched the Japanese.

Americans only took ~200,000 KIA in the Pacific. The Japanese took around ~1,000,000 KIA fighting the Americans. They got slaughtered throughout the whole war and literally the only battle they inflicted more casualties was Iwo Jima.

>the second half is a /pol/ opinion and not an observation on the Japanese soldier as a man

Don't post anymore

>a battle so meaningless that only canadian sources bother to mention it
>a quote of dubious legitimacy

Yup, sums up Canada's role in both world wars pretty well.

>it's hard killing nips on emperor mandated starvation posts when you have every single advantage

Japan would have lost even if their war with America had their undivided attention.

Fuckload of good an extra 1+ million soldiers does when you can't garrison them on the islands being assaulted because you couldn't supply them with food because your navy lost the decisive battle and lost total control of the seas.

Japan should have won the naval battles then if they didn't want to have their merchant ships to resupply their soldiers sunk to the bottom of the sea.

Japs for sure

Leckies account of Guadalcanal was fucking horrifying to read and Sledge's of Peleliu and Okinawa even more so.
>night time
>cacophony of insects and other fauna so can't hear all that well
>humid as shit, but wind is blowing which is cooling you down a little
>think you hear something
>call goes down the line JAPS IN THE WIRE
>flare goes up and all fucking hell breaks loose
>start firing and your shots are drowned out by the sheer number of calls of TENNO HEIKA BANZAI
>keep firing but the japs keep coming non-stop
>bodies start to pile up but you keep firing and the japs keep coming
>bodies get stacked so high that the japs start using them for cover and infiltrate your line so you gotta go into hand to hand or fall back
>rinse repeat for 3 years