Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP

I really think you should study your modern military history more thoroughly. Your enthusiasm for a discredited theory of military operations is difficult to understand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JediMessiah

snip

it takes, for arguments sake, 16 years to build an infantryman, while a tank can be built in hours. and as a military commander or politician or soldiers family, i would much rather see my money wasted than my soldiers lives squandered.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JEB Davis

What I see going on here is a basic difference in how cultures view the value of human life. Don't eastern culture and western culture (over the course of history) sit on opposite sides of this issue? I think so.

I personally think human life is much too precious to throw it away in cavalry/infantry charges into the teeth of machineguns, etc. Much better to maneuver, flank, encircle, etc. to end a battle with less loss of life (on both sides) than to increase the carnage which TBT revels in.

HOWEVER, it's just a game after all. Even though while I play it I sometimes CRINGE when "my" men are killed, and take it seriously.

Go for it TBT, charge !!!!!! Have fun like YOU want to !!!!

Let's all enjoy playing it the way we like to, variety is the spice of life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: forgorin

Human life is NOT precious. Those who think otherwise need to spend some time soul searching. We NEED to get rid of some people. Not necessarily you, but lots of us. Our present population is a serious problem. It is causing the slow but ever quickening destruction of our world. We are using nonrenewable resources at a phi nominal increasing rate. Polluting out soil, water and air. The 3 most precious things to us “people”. With out those we will all shrivel up and die. That said...

We need a new war where Haig like tactics are used. Scrap the tanks. All that they do is WASTE out precious resources. Use people we have more than enough.

quote:

ORIGINAL: forgorin

Human life is NOT precious. Those who think otherwise need to spend some time soul searching. We NEED to get rid of some people. Not necessarily you, but lots of us. Our present population is a serious problem. It is causing the slow but ever quickening destruction of our world. We are using nonrenewable resources at a phi nominal increasing rate. Polluting out soil, water and air. The 3 most precious things to us “people”. With out those we will all shrivel up and die. That said...

Retreat is NOT an option.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TokyoBoyTensai
Your ideas about minimizing casualties are based on common sense as well as human nation JEB Davis. In the short term it makes sense. However, studying historical battles reveals a trend only the best military tacticians can recognize without being told. This is the strategy behind warfare. Almost all the major wars of the 20th century were won using massed infantry attacks, sometimes employing cavalry as well for optimal effectiveness.

For example, General Giap defeated both the French and the USA in Vietnam using human wave attacks supported by intense mortar fire. China prevented North Korea from being saved by the Americans and only a U.N. peace treaty stopped the rampaging hordes of Chinese, who had neither tanks nor air support, from taking all of Korea into the communist camp. As I have suggested before, please study your military history from reputable sources before making statements like this; not only did the Chinese have tanks, but so did the North Koreans, as anyone from Task Force Smith can attest to. And both had air support; why do you think the US called the northwest section of Korea "MiG Alley?

The point of this is, the high casualties enjoyed during those wars not only made for a more interesting war, it also ended the war earlier and with less casualties than a beat around the bush, 'casualty minimizing' strategy would have achieved. The USA and Russia both now cannot handle casualties and their wars have suffered accordingly as we saw in both Vietnam for America and in Afganistan the Soviets were crushed by cavalry and infantry only. Modern tactics and weapons were defeated by simple, WW1 weapons and tactics. This is not only a simplistic statement, ignoring the greater political and social aspects that contributed to these defeats, but is also a grossly incorrect one. What WWI weapons were the VC and North Vietnamese using? Oh, right...the AK47 assault rifle. What WWI tactics were used by them? Yeah...fire and manuever.

As for needing a huge population base to provide for large infantry attacks, that is a major misunderstanding. The Soviet Union outnumbered the Afgans by many times and still lost to their simplicity. America also outnumbered Vietnam by many times in population, yet lost due to lack of grit and commitment, as well as they relied on modern weapons and tactics to their detriment.

Haig was before his time in foreseeing the effectiveness of a massed infantry charge along with arty and cavalry. Had Haig not been a commander, Germany would likely have taken over France in WW1.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Warrior
You might consider doing more studying rather than just parroting the eco-fanatic party line. While it's a good idea to control population, we are not in danger of running out of any resources. History shows that when things get scarce, new sources or alternatives will be found. The sky is not falling.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Korpraali V

quote:

ORIGINAL: Warrior
You might consider doing more studying rather than just parroting the eco-fanatic party line. While it's a good idea to control population, we are not in danger of running out of any resources. History shows that when things get scarce, new sources or alternatives will be found. The sky is not falling.

Agreed. And the real question is how to share the resources we have. Currently food could be shared to everyone and it would be enough. It's a question of will, not a question of resources. And as long as we are that 10% that own and use 90% of everything on this earth, we have nothing to complain about resource limits. We and our sefisness are the real problems here, not the amount of resources.

It is not a question of human population but a question of human (our) selfisness.

Retreat is NOT an option.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Warrior

We, the 10% that consumes 90% of the resources, are also the ones who crank out 90% of what the worlds needs and uses. To call that selfish is another politically-correct but erroneous world-view. Before we start beating our breasts and feeling guilty about the resources we use, let's look at how much of EVERYTHING we produce... and where the world would have been without that production. As far as enough food for everyone, let's point the finger at the governments who, for political reasons and to retain their power, keep the supplies from getting to their people, or haven't built the infrastructure necessary to get the supplies distributed because their corrupt rulers are too busy stuffing their Swiss bank accounts.

quote:


In case you were referring specifically to the United States: Americans are not selfish, and never have been. I challenge you to show me any other country that gives as much, officially from our government and unoffically by private citizens, as America.

quote:


And here's a final question for you: I own a nice house, drive a decent car, have plenty of food and conveniences, I give to my favorite charities, and pay my taxes. I have worked very hard for all I have and spend my hard-earned dollars on what I feel is important. My neighbor is a lazy bum who won't work, has no legitimate reason to qualify for welfare from the government, and always whines about not having anything. Should I consider myself selfish because I don't buy him a house, car, and groceries?

quote:

ORIGINAL: azraelck
but finally we dealt with it.