Who do you think had the most dangerous and stressful job of WWII miliatary units?

[mahon83050]

As a person who likes history (especially WWII) and whose brain is constantly thinking of unique and "wierd" situations...I always wondered what people thought about this. Do you ever think if you were alive during the draft of WWII, what service of unit you would of joined? While all veterans who fought in WWII earn my utmost respect, some faced different scenarios of dangers. Which one would scare you the most?

What unit do you respect the most?

Here are a list of some pros and cons of each unit. I did not add airborne troops (since they fall under infantry) or submariners (since they were a very small group) to the list.

[B]Infantrymen (Army and Marines)- [/B]Pros: No need to worry about drowning or dying in a fiery crash and probably the greatest comraderie. Cons: Had to worry about getting shot, stepping on mines, mortars, marching for hours while tired, lack of sleep, sleeping in foxholes and dealing with the extreme cold and heat.

Armour (Tanks, etc.) Pros: Sense of intense power since the enemy is scared ****less of you, you can run over just about anything and you kind of feel protected being surrounded by steel. Don't have to live in and out of a foxhole or march Cons: Since you pose the greatest threat to the enemy, you are the #1 target on the battlefield. The enemy is going to be looking to take you out first. If you are going to get killed, it probably won't be from bullets, but probably from the impact from an explosion or being trapped inside the tank and burning to death.

Navy Sailor: Pros: Feel somewhat peaceful while out to sea; decent living conditions while not in combat, don't really have to deal with extreme cold or hot weather (you could go back indoors) Cons: Had to worry about Kamikaze planes; drowning, getting eaten by sharks if stranded in the water, getting blownup at any moment by an unseen enemy submarine torpedo.

Airmen (Bombers and Fighters): Pros: While not flying on a sortie, probably had the best living conditions (e.g, comfortable beds, food, and usually not in enemy territory if not on a mission) Cons: Can't run for cover while being shot at by enemy flak or enemy planes; chance of dieing in a high impact fiery crash, plane exploding in midair, parachute not opening if had to bail out.


IMHO, dieing a slow horrible death by fire (tank duty) would be the worst. Those who were in the armour units get the highest respects in my book.

However, it seems by general consensus; grunt infantrymen got the most respect out of anyone because they had the worst living conditions while not in combat.

Note: Think back to WWII ONLY, not Korea, Vietnam or recent wars.

 

[Bible_Belt]

My ex-wife's dad was an RAF pilot, flew a Typhoon in strafing missions over France. He said that there were fewer pilots at breakfast each morning; one did not make close friends with other pilots, because death was so common. He took a large caliber bullet through the floor of his plane and into his neck, but flew the plane home from France anyway.

 

[mahon83050]

My ex-wife's dad was an RAF pilot, flew a Typhoon in strafing missions over France. He said that there were fewer pilots at breakfast each morning; one did not make close friends with other pilots, because death was so common. He took a large caliber bullet through the floor of his plane and into his neck, but flew the plane home from France anyway.

Cool stuff. I remember reading or hearing somehthing very similiar reading/watching something on the Battle of Britain.

 

[gmillar]

Cool? Are you ****ing retarded? Let's shoot you in the neck and see how cool you think it is then. Courageous and admirable, definitely, but definitely not "cool." I think someone's been playing way too much CoD and MoH.

 

[MrS]

I'd say the land medics

Mahon my friend, I am having trouble beleiving that story, no offence in the slightest meant however!
A large caliber bullet designed to bring down a plane, would undoubtedly take his head off. Likely a 0.50"? Perhaps it was shrapnel or something similar?

Either way, your ex-father in law is a man to be proud of!

 

[Centaurion]

It depends. If you look at the German armour, they had tanks like the Tiger, Jagd Panther, Jagd Tiger. Christ, those things were invulnerable with their 88mm, 128mm cannons and thick tilted armour. I've read several accounts where ONE Tiger tank encountered 5 Shermans, and took them all out while the rounds from the Shermans didn't even make a dent in the Tiger's armour. But when the Allies got air-superiority with P54 Mustangs, I think it must have sucked really hard to be a German grenadier.

Anyways, I think it was the hardest for the Medics. Those poor bastards had ti gut it out with the infantery while trying to save the injured men on the battlefield. It takes balls of steel to run into a firefight without weapons, trying to save a fellow comrade.

 

[Desdinova]

Cool? Are you ****ing retarded? Let's shoot you in the neck and see how cool you think it is then. Courageous and admirable, definitely, but definitely not "cool." I think someone's been playing way too much CoD and MoH.

Let's NOT turn this into a political thread.

 

[seagull]

Infantry have had it worse is most wars I think, WWII included.

 

[Bonhomme]

I'd say the infantry troops that took to the beaches on D-Day and the Pacific theater landings against the Japanese. Actually, the Japanese troops defending the islands had the worst of it, fighting to their almost inevitable death.

*********

Going back further, the Union and Confederate troops who made those insane charges against well-positioned formations had a ridiculous assignment. Talk about tactics lagging way behind weapons technology...

 

[mahon83050]

Cool? Are you ****ing retarded? Let's shoot you in the neck and see how cool you think it is then. Courageous and admirable, definitely, but definitely not "cool." I think someone's been playing way too much CoD and MoH.

Relax dude, I was not talking about getting shot, but the informative story.

I had a greatuncle who was a Marine killed in the Marshall Islands, so I definitely DO NOT think it is cool.

 

[mahon83050]

I think I should mention that I read somewhere:

American Bomber crewman had the shortest lifespan of anyone in the war. If you were in a B-17 or B-24, B-25, you had a 33% chance of being killed.

 

[GtarPlayr73]

It depends. If you look at the German armour, they had tanks like the Tiger, Jagd Panther, Jagd Tiger.

Someone who knows what a Jagdpanther is - i love it! History enthusiasts on this site. Why am i not surprised? (I'm a history buff myself with a BA in history).

 

[Bonhomme]

Actually, come to think of it, the German U-boat crews probably had the lowest chance of survival. If I recall correctly, only about 1 in 4 came survived the war.

*******

The Germans did have some awesome armor. And let's not forget the Russian T-34, which many consider the most balanced design of the war, with good speed and mobility, as well as power.

 

[djSlvt]

Grunts..


More dangerous then grounts, would be recon unit. More dangerous that recon unit, would be sniper team. More dangerous than that would be special ops units.

The most dangerious of all were the partizans, gurillas... Those often launched suicide missions.

You have to look at Red Army for heroes. They've done plenty of fighting, and are perhaps the most under rated of all. In the US it is the US Army who lead the war, in the UK, it is the UK army who led the war. Reality of things is that it was a world war, and Red Army has the biggest front, sustained the biggest casualties, inflected the biggest casualties, and eventually finished the war with a great and well earned victory.

I hate to listen to people who say they were poorly equipped. Sure, during the initial years of 41 to 45 there wasn't enough. But they recovered, and had the best weapons of the war, best training, and best tactics. End result is victory.

 

[Vulpine]

You didn't even bother to mention Signal Corps.

Psshff.

As anyone who has been in the service can attest, disrupting enemy communication is one of the primary objectives.

If there was a general standing next to a guy with a radio, the guy with the radio would get shot first.

And, back in WWII, guys had to hump wire for phone lines. This included climbing telephone poles! Can you say, "target on a stick"? Snipers and scouts wouldn't hesitate to pick off a lineman, even if it meant blowing their cover and giving away their position.

Anyway, the signal corps is sadly overlooked and under appreciated in the modern era. Since the advent of two-way radio and cell phones, satellite, etc., it's hard to relate back to old-fashioned war methods.

I have yet to see a WWII video game have an objective like "establish, and maintain a phone line connection".

There were relatively few signal corps people, so I'm sure the body count doesn't compare. But as far as "most dangerous" and "stressful"? I'd say "linesman" is right up there with "minesweeper".

:nervous:

 

[djSlvt]

In 1941, 1942, in the Ukraine, and other parts of USSR. Partizans lead sabotage activities against Germans. Inflicting plenty of casualties, disrupting supply lines.

Germans called these men "terrorists".

What they've done was terrorist - against Germans, against population, against everything and everyone who helped the German effort.



Fast forward to today's Palestine. Terrorists lead a war of terror against Israel..

Two hard questions:

A) Do they lead this war of terror because Israel occupies their land?

B) Are they terrorists or partizands - or freedom fighters?



The answers are highly subjective... You must use reason wisely.

 

[ChrizZ]

In 1941, 1942, in the Ukraine, and other parts of USSR. Partizans lead sabotage activities against Germans. Inflicting plenty of casualties, disrupting supply lines.

Germans called these men "terrorists".

What they've done was terrorist - against Germans, against population, against everything and everyone who helped the German effort.



Fast forward to today's Palestine. Terrorists lead a war of terror against Israel..

Two hard questions:

A) Do they lead this war of terror because Israel occupies their land?

B) Are they terrorists or partizands - or freedom fighters?



The answers are highly subjective... You must use reason wisely.

Those who kill in favor of a few are called "terrorists" ; those who kill in favor of many are called "heros".

It always depends on your point of view...

 

[djSlvt]

Those who kill in favor of a few are called "terrorists" ; those who kill in favor of many are called "heros".

It always depends on your point of view...

My POV. Israel occupies Palestine. Palestine has a right to fight for their freedom. Thus who we call terrorists, are actually heroes. We had a long debate about this with my friend, over a bottle of vodka...

How come partizans during WWII were thought as heroes by people who they fought for, and as terrorists by people who they fought against? This, fine line distinction, that I'm unable to see.. The USA, Israel, and many other countries think of Palestinian resistance as terrorism, yet Palestinian people and many middle eastern countries view them as freedom fighters, their partizans.

One can't help but to associate us with Germans and them with Russians, US, UK, other allies during WWII..


This is a fiery ground topic. Perhaps not here and not now.

 

[mahon83050]

Well, as I stated earlier:

Although a sailor, airmen or a person inside a tank had a chance of dieing in a more horrible way than an infantrymen (e.g, drowning, crashing into something at 250mph, being trapped inside, eaten by sharks) Infantrymen still get the most respect because when they were not in combat; THEY WERE STILL ON THE FRONT LINES, WERE CONSTANTLY ON THE MOVE, AND HAD THE WORST LIVING CONDITIONS.

 

[backbreaker]

THIS IS AN EASY QUESTION TO ANSWER


the fluffers....duh