SACair Forum

Hey boys and girls. Its mee Neema. Wouldn't be shocked or offended if not many or if any at that :lol: remember me here. Ive been quite for some time. But anyway

Trench Foot, Dysentary, trench fever, Influenza, Lice, Malaria, Typhoid fever,Da costas syndrome, Shell shock, pickelhaulbes, Maxim 08, German MP18, Browing B.A.R, Springfield 1903, Trench Systems lasting 400+ miles, Lewis Gun, Lee Enfield SMLE, Zeppelins, Fokker Eindecker, Fokker D, IV,Sopwith Camel, British Mk 1 tank, French Renault FT17, the 14 points,zimmerman telegram....

Just show your friend in a soldiers outfit dying 5,000,000 different times and it will be historically accurate.

[quote="Kreiger"]Just show your friend in a soldiers outfit dying 5,000,000 different times and it will be historically accurate.[/quote]

Very true. We just finished our ww1 unit in history and I was thinking how a little use of tactics could have saved millions of lives. WW2 was basically ww1 just with use of tactics and logical strategy.

you gotta show how brutal it was like in the trenches for example hand to hand contact or in some cases shovel to head contact or rock to face contact.

[quote="hairy_apple"][quote="Kreiger"]Just show your friend in a soldiers outfit dying 5,000,000 different times and it will be historically accurate.[/quote]

interesting. WW1 was like the crappiest war in the history of wars. Even the air forces didnt get you out of the sh*t lol

WW1 was old school thinking/tactics that haddn't adjusted for machine guns, gas, tanks, planes, barbed wire, ect. no one knew how to fight in a modern war and it was a tough learning curve.

no mans land FTW

The use of chemical warfare made things so much more fun too, =]

[quote="lawlz_xD"]The use of chemical warfare made things so much more fun too, =][/quote]

[quote="hairy_apple"][quote="lawlz_xD"]The use of chemical warfare made things so much more fun too, =][/quote]

Eh... both actually. They are more about the fear factor then actual effectiveness in war. They are so dependent on wind and weather being in your favor to use. They are hard to deploy. The only effect a small area. They disperse quickly. However, they are scary as all hell.

[quote="hairy_apple"]Eh... both actually. They are more about the fear factor then actual effectiveness in war. They are so dependent on wind and weather being in your favor to use. They are hard to deploy. The only effect a small area. They disperse quickly. However, they are scary as all hell.[/quote]i agree that they are scary but i think saddams mustard gas was pretty effective.

Yes, but as a whole they are not effective weapons. Not compared to more conventional weapons.

[quote="hairy_apple"]Yes, but as a whole they are not effective weapons. Not compared to more conventional weapons.[/quote]oohhh yeah. but look how crazy everyone got about anthrax back around 9/11 remember that?

[quote="hairy_apple"]Yes, but as a whole they are not effective weapons. Not compared to more conventional weapons.[/quote]oohhh yeah. but look how crazy everyone got about anthrax back around 9/11 remember that?

Well... like I said. The psychological effect was a 1000 times worse then the actual damage done.

The port-a-potty was introduced as was the concept of a flushing toilet. The term "I have to use the John" was coined since the first name of the inventor was John. Last name I believe was Crapper or at least that's how it was pronounced.

Read the book "Suddenly We Didn't Want to Die" by Elton Mackin.

another book you could read is "all quiet on the western front" a GREAT book about the great war.

[quote="tex25"]another book you could read is "all quiet on the western front" a GREAT book about the great war.[/quote]

i really enjoyed that book, made me sad though :?

[quote="airsoftguy971"]i really enjoyed that book, made me sad though :?[/quote]of course :cry:

[quote="tex25"]another book you could read is "all quiet on the western front" a GREAT book about the great war.[/quote]