|
That gets me thinking about a similar question. The trench lines are crossing some non-trivial sized rivers: How the hell did that work?
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2021 06:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 22:03 |
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:It just takes longer. You'd never do it if Vladivostok was an option, but it wasn't as if the US couldn't spare the fuel or crews for it. Fuel, and crews, and hulls, and escorts... It's 4871 nautical miles from LA to Vladivostok, or about 50 days for a round trip. It's 6789 nm from New York to Cape Town and then another 5189 nm from Cape Town to Abadan for 124 days for a round trip. You need two and a half times the resources and there is a much longer lag time between when the Russians ask for say, more spare parts for their 5 ton trucks, and when they get them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 04:11
|
|
|
Gort posted:I guess it comes down to what you consider an alteration to the outcome of the war. I could see an Imperial Germany that made better diplomatic moves keeping the US out of the war: It's hard for me to imagine an Imperial Germany that doesn't do those things. There was a paranoid, chip on their shoulder attitude throughout the government and military. You see it from their view on encirclement (which leads to the Schlieffen plan), to trying to out navy Britain, to the Atrocities in Belgium to their attitude on neutrals. Unrestricted sub warfare was driven in part by that attitude as well, with a little "we have to show the people we're trying" in response to the crippling blockade. It's a black, gay Hitler, but with the Kaiser.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2021 16:58
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Conversely, they were wed to the idea of the immediate counterattack, so when their infantry lines were breached (usually by a prepared offensive), they would launch an infantry counterattack that would instantly deplete their reserves and force them to rely further on defensive positions. You write it like the immediate counterattack usually failed and thus was dumb to do, but it was very successful for most of the war. Narrowing the breakthrough as much as possible so a later armored counterattack would have an easier time sealing it off was a really successful model up until call it mid 1944 when the force ratios were overwhelmingly in favor of the allies.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2021 22:08
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:What I'm tilting at are the people who wax poetic about how they understand what it was like to be a draftee from North Carolina in 1864 because they wore a costume and went camping. There are layers to this though. You're taking an argument which is similar to "unless you devote years of time and effort to learn the language and live in France, you can't really understand what it's like to be a Frenchman". That's certainly true! But traveling to France for a week is going to give you a lot better appreciation for it than just staying in the US your whole life, even if you just hit the touristy spots. Well-made games can and will teach you something about history, mediated by the lens of the designer. That's no different than a history book giving you a view mediated by the author or a tour guide giving you a mediated view of France. If the author or designer or tour guide is terrible, you're going to get a poor understanding. If they are good however, they're going to enhance your learning. I personally find games vastly more effective because, for me, being forced to confront a subset of challenges that a historical person faced helps me understand their context vastly better than just reading about it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2022 05:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 22:03 |
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Advanced Squad Leader did more than teach me the basics. This too. My hundreds of hours of OCS time have taught me to read a map pretty well. Nothing like failing to garrison a key rail junction to really teach a lesson about how important logistics are.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2022 05:36
|
|