Which World War was the most influenced by ongoing technological

World War 1

>>1618159
But what about high altitude bombers or the atom bomb? The Manhattan Project surely beats out any research program during WW1.

>>1618157

Every war is influenced like that. Silly question.

>>1620402
>most

>>1618159
>>1620370
Truth be told, both saw extremely rapid development.

WW1 went from the last cavalry charges in a major conventional war to having the first combined arms offensives with air, armor, and artillery supporting infantry pushes.

WW2 went from a comparably advanced military with piston fighters and half tracks to an absolutely insane level of development with ICBMs, jet fighters, and nuclear devices being used.

>>1620466
something not so noble about dieing to a bullet+ compared to sword & shield

like the skill component or an honourable death was removed from the equation

>>1620476
Maybe I'm a weirdo, but I see the world wars as being much more interesting.

Like, if you're fighting in the medieval era, there are only a handful of military campaigns that actually effect history in a meaningful way. The rest is just squabbling among nobles.

If you were fighting at somewhere like the Marne or Stalingrad, you were witnessing something that would shape the rest of human history.

>>1620466
> ICBMs, jet fighters, and nuclear devices being used.
A form of warfare we still haven't seen used asymmetrically. I suppose this is the point were we end world wars or world wars end us. History as we knew it ended with WW2.

>>1620532
I think you might be overvaluing recent events at the cost of more distant ones.

There were tons of little skirmishes in WWII that "actually effect history in a meaningful way."

At the time, those smaller medieval squabbles were shaping regional politics in very significant ways for centuries to come.