this post was submitted on 19 May 2024
724 points (95.5% liked)

memes

10261 readers
3073 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 44 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Would you even need to ask? What with the trenches and mustard gas everywhere?

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 27 points 5 months ago (2 children)

They did still have trenches and other fortifications in WW2. That said...

  1. Do you see any tanks traveling faster than 15mph? Any planes with less than four wings?
  • WW2
  1. Mustaches? Waxed?
  • WW1
  1. Folks with gas masks on their belts are definitely a tell.
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago (3 children)
[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Also plenty of monoplanes in WWI, most notably the Fokker Eindeckers,.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Good point. And, not to glorify warfare, but the synchronization gear was an amazingly innovative piece of technology.

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

It was certainly better than the initial French attempt to solve the problem, which was so good they named a tennis stadium after it.

[–] lauha@lemmy.one 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Yes, but not other way around

[–] Damage@feddit.it 4 points 5 months ago

Not a lot of WWII in biplanes?

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

There were monoplanes in WWI, most notably the Fokker Eindeckers which kicked the snot out of the Allies for most of 1915 and on into 1916, though largely because of their synchronized machine guns rather than any superiority in their design.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

yeah, no, gas masks were carried in ww2. some poor bastards (depending on unit) carried them all the way through the war. promask carriers were a choice bit of storage room if you decided to lose the mask, but early on lots of folks worried that it would be used on the battlefield again.

plenty of discussion on this with a quick search

[–] wildcardology@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

Why would he even ask if it's 1 or 2, just ask the year.

[–] this_1_is_mine@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Ground so dangerous you couldn't walk offinto the fields. So many shells fired it turn the soil into quick sand. Stick to the boards. If you slip and fall your compatriots dare not try and save you or their fate will be sealed as well.

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

So many shells fired it turn the soil into quick sand.

An interesting stat is that the major combatants fired approximately 300 artillery shells for every soldier that was killed - and 75mm shells (the most common caliber) are not trivial industrial products to produce. It's hard to even conceive of an industrial society devoting that much productive capacity to the task of killing somebody.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

The eastern front was a lot more dynamic and had fewer trenches.