(Full Version)

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



Message


Chiteng -> (11/15/2003 7:42:41 AM)

[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.




Chiteng -> (11/15/2003 7:45:08 AM)

[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.




Chiteng -> (11/15/2003 7:47:15 AM)

[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.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.34375