Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >>

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 11/15/2003 7:42:41 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE=byron13]Nope, sorry Chiteng. Mdiehl wins this round. Assuming you actually said that Mac and Nimitz were wrong to try a two-pronged approach, you're licked. The statement - if made - presumes you believed that they had the assets available to successfully execute a single-pronged advance and, therefore, should have done so. Now in WitP, having been allocated the same forces they were allocated, you say you cannot make a single-pronged approach cannot work. I don't see King coming into this equation at all. Either you can successfully execute a single-prong attack through the Central Pacific with the forces historically allocated or, if you can't, I think you've got to admit that the historical strategy is somewhat validated.[/QUOTE]

In no case. All statements were postulated on the release of WITP which at that
time was billed as having USA production. Obviously it does not. It isnt even close.

_____________________________

�It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.�

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 1

- 11/15/2003 7:45:08 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE=byron13]Nope, sorry Chiteng. Mdiehl wins this round. Assuming you actually said that Mac and Nimitz were wrong to try a two-pronged approach, you're licked. The statement - if made - presumes you believed that they had the assets available to successfully execute a single-pronged advance and, therefore, should have done so. Now in WitP, having been allocated the same forces they were allocated, you say you cannot make a single-pronged approach cannot work. I don't see King coming into this equation at all. Either you can successfully execute a single-prong attack through the Central Pacific with the forces historically allocated or, if you can't, I think you've got to admit that the historical strategy is somewhat validated.[/QUOTE]

BTW I will never admit that feeding Macs ego is sound military strategy. NEVER.

_____________________________

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 2

- 11/15/2003 7:47:15 AM

Chiteng

Posts: 7666
Joined: 2/20/2001
From: Raleigh,nc,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE=byron13]Nope, sorry Chiteng. Mdiehl wins this round. Assuming you actually said that Mac and Nimitz were wrong to try a two-pronged approach, you're licked. The statement - if made - presumes you believed that they had the assets available to successfully execute a single-pronged advance and, therefore, should have done so. Now in WitP, having been allocated the same forces they were allocated, you say you cannot make a single-pronged approach cannot work. I don't see King coming into this equation at all. Either you can successfully execute a single-prong attack through the Central Pacific with the forces historically allocated or, if you can't, I think you've got to admit that the historical strategy is somewhat validated.[/QUOTE]

BTW my opponents tend to NOT quote what I actually say.
Nimitz didnt want a two-pronged strategy. It was FDR parsing that forced that.

_____________________________

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 3