|
|
Post by Josip Broz Tito on Aug 28, 2022 1:40:34 GMT
1. Then why does the federal government exist? As a rubber stamp? What if the state is seceding against the interests of its people and forming an White North Korea, which is exactly what the Confederacy was? 2. Yeah, his mustache sucks. Plus, warfare-wise he was a bit of a training guy rather than a brilliant tactician or strategist. 1. The federal government is there to enforce national mandates. While the federal government certainly should exist and maintain power, if a state wants to leave it should have every right to. Also, obviously I don't support nullification. 2. No it does not. And warfare wise, I think his major tactical ideas were that "The Union doesn't have to win. It just can't lose." And he performed as such. If the Confederacy got a major victory, it might diminish the support for the war at home and thus win the war for the Confederacy. McClellan's entire strategy was to not lose. 1. Agree to disagree. I feel like your libertarian self from a few years ago is possessing you right now.  2. Yes, but why do that when you can win. Plus, McClellan failed the Peninsula Campaign, which was, to be frank, a military embarrassment. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Aug 28, 2022 1:53:29 GMT
1. The federal government is there to enforce national mandates. While the federal government certainly should exist and maintain power, if a state wants to leave it should have every right to. Also, obviously I don't support nullification. 2. No it does not. And warfare wise, I think his major tactical ideas were that "The Union doesn't have to win. It just can't lose." And he performed as such. If the Confederacy got a major victory, it might diminish the support for the war at home and thus win the war for the Confederacy. McClellan's entire strategy was to not lose. 1. Agree to disagree. I feel like your libertarian self from a few years ago is possessing you right now. 2. Yes, but why do that when you can win. Plus, McClellan failed the Peninsula Campaign, which was, to be frank, a military embarrassment. 1. Not libertarian. Just anti-fed. There's an important distinction. I am a statist. 2. Fair enough. I really appreciate that he didn't just throw his troops pointlessly at the enemy. |
|
|
|
Post by Manfred von Richthofen on Aug 30, 2022 2:52:15 GMT
I’ll just give ‘em to ya 1. What was the tactic used by Shaka and his Impi warriors? 2. From what nation/culture did Shaka Originate? 3. Where is the Transvaal? You need 2/3 to get through 1. Encirclement Tactics 2. Eastern South Africa (where the former Zulu Kingdom was) 3. Transvaal is in Northeastern South Africa |
|
|
|
Post by Ludwig von Mises on Aug 30, 2022 20:48:11 GMT
I’ll just give ‘em to ya 1. What was the tactic used by Shaka and his Impi warriors? 2. From what nation/culture did Shaka Originate? 3. Where is the Transvaal? You need 2/3 to get through 1. Encirclement Tactics 2. Eastern South Africa (where the former Zulu Kingdom was) 3. Transvaal is in Northeastern South Africa Correct. You’re getting in! |
|
|
|
Post by nikomachos on Sept 8, 2022 18:13:24 GMT
hi so i thought i just ask a question without membership and hoped i am allowed to. blitzkrieg is so damn op.
1 how do you counter blitzkrieg if you do not have man superiority like sowjets had in ww2.
2 how would we today counter Blitzkrieg manoveurs? so today not ww2.
3 and is blitzkrieg an outdated tactics where we bomb armored assault with rockets, omg.
so as intro some thoughts.
1... a short quick search in the internet suggest defense in depth and therefore not getting encircled by blitzkrieg-attacker. and after that in turn encirclment maneuver.
well haha, sure easier said than done.
you need superiority, as everything about blitzkrieg: quick, armored, and elite, is designed to push trough and penetrate whatever you have. if you keep giving up positions as not to let bk break trough and retreat in depth the bk attacker has not lost anything as long as they realize that and stop and reestablish the supplylines. they are only in deep shoot if they let encirclment happen bc they keep pushing and not give up whatever objective destiniations they picked beforehand... some distant city or such.
so how to counter it without having to rely on them to isolate themselves...?
how to stop, grind to a halt such an elite force thats made for pushing so that you can encircle them without hughe superiority in thr first place.
2... no idea, see 3.
3... dude we have rockets (and bombers) that blast everything thats clumped up (destroying the aussault force) and since they fly dont need to encircle you in order to get behind you and cut off your supplies (destroy logistics from afar)
idk, much said might be reductive considering the complexity of war tactics but bk seems too op to fail in ww2 (even though it did. and at the same time too nerfed today to feel relevant.
please share your knowledge and thx for making me think about this a little more. its always bothered me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ludwig von Mises on Sept 9, 2022 0:13:13 GMT
hi so i thought i just ask a question without membership and hoped i am allowed to. blitzkrieg is so damn op. 1 how do you counter blitzkrieg if you do not have man superiority like sowjets had in ww2. 2 how would we today counter Blitzkrieg manoveurs? so today not ww2. 3 and is blitzkrieg an outdated tactics where we bomb armored assault with rockets, omg. so as intro some thoughts. 1... a short quick search in the internet suggest defense in depth and therefore not getting encircled by blitzkrieg-attacker. and after that in turn encirclment maneuver. well haha, sure easier said than done. you need superiority, as everything about blitzkrieg: quick, armored, and elite, is designed to push trough and penetrate whatever you have. if you keep giving up positions as not to let bk break trough and retreat in depth the bk attacker has not lost anything as long as they realize that and stop and reestablish the supplylines. they are only in deep shoot if they let encirclment happen bc they keep pushing and not give up whatever objective destiniations they picked beforehand... some distant city or such. so how to counter it without having to rely on them to isolate themselves...? how to stop, grind to a halt such an elite force thats made for pushing so that you can encircle them without hughe superiority in thr first place. 2... no idea, see 3. 3... dude we have rockets (and bombers) that blast everything thats clumped up (destroying the aussault force) and since they fly dont need to encircle you in order to get behind you and cut off your supplies (destroy logistics from afar) idk, much said might be reductive considering the complexity of war tactics but bk seems too op to fail in ww2 (even though it did. and at the same time too nerfed today to feel relevant. please share your knowledge and thx for making me think about this a little more. its always bothered me. 1. Well, considering blitzkrieg involved usage of tanks and heavy infantry to penetrate enemy lines and then encircle, putting defensive constructions in the back of your lines as well as getting anti-tank guns and mobile infantry would help. 2. Like you said, rocketry 3. Yes, it is outdated but it will always remain one of the most intriguing strategies. |
|
|
|
Post by Josip Broz Tito on Sept 15, 2022 23:31:12 GMT
Who was the most overrated general or admiral in history? My pick is George S Patton.
|
|
|
|
Post by Manfred von Richthofen on Sept 15, 2022 23:53:46 GMT
Who was the most overrated general or admiral in history? My pick is George S Patton. Overrated? MacArthur |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Sept 16, 2022 12:22:09 GMT
Who was the most overrated general or admiral in history? My pick is George S Patton. By far Yi-Sun-Sin. He won one brilliant battle against the Japanese (that really wasn't as brilliant as most people say it is), and he is considered by most everyone to be the greatest admiral of all time and is now essentially a literal god in Korea. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Sept 16, 2022 12:24:36 GMT
Who was the most overrated general or admiral in history? My pick is George S Patton. Overrated? MacArthur How dare you?! Allow me to list a couple of his accomplishments: Inchon, the entire S. Pacific campaign, completed with shockingly few casualties, the initial defense of the Philippines (I dare say one of the best fought battles of WWII), the rest of the Korean War (woulda won had the Chinese not stepped in). Everything he tried his hand at was an enormous success. |
|
|
|
Post by Ludwig von Mises on Sept 16, 2022 23:51:14 GMT
Who was the most overrated general or admiral in history? My pick is George S Patton. Barclay. Didn’t know shoot. Same can be said for every other Russian napoleonic General except Kutuzov and Suvorov. |
|
|
|
Post by Josip Broz Tito on Sept 17, 2022 0:06:59 GMT
Who was the most overrated general or admiral in history? My pick is George S Patton. Barclay. Didn’t know shoot. Same can be said for every other Russian napoleonic General except Kutuzov and Suvorov. Ahem. Barclay, I believe, was the original scorched earth guy and was leading the Army in the early stages of the Russian Campaign, but was later fired. |
|
|
|
Post by Ludwig von Mises on Sept 18, 2022 2:16:03 GMT
Barclay. Didn’t know shoot. Same can be said for every other Russian napoleonic General except Kutuzov and Suvorov. Ahem. Barclay, I believe, was the original scorched earth guy and was leading the Army in the early stages of the Russian Campaign, but was later fired. Yeah, the scorched earth guy who caused a crash in the Russian economy and agricultural storage for years to come. Set the stages for future revolutions and revolts. |
|
|
|
Post by Manfred von Richthofen on Sept 20, 2022 0:00:58 GMT
How dare you?! Allow me to list a couple of his accomplishments: Inchon, the entire S. Pacific campaign, completed with shockingly few casualties, the initial defense of the Philippines (I dare say one of the best fought battles of WWII), the rest of the Korean War (woulda won had the Chinese not stepped in). Everything he tried his hand at was an enormous success. He dismissed criticisms and heaped praise on himself while ignoring the huge contributions to his victories provided by others. His air force got wiped out in minutes due to his short sightedness, and he shelled Seoul for absolutely no reason. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Sept 20, 2022 12:41:41 GMT
How dare you?! Allow me to list a couple of his accomplishments: Inchon, the entire S. Pacific campaign, completed with shockingly few casualties, the initial defense of the Philippines (I dare say one of the best fought battles of WWII), the rest of the Korean War (woulda won had the Chinese not stepped in). Everything he tried his hand at was an enormous success. He dismissed criticisms and heaped praise on himself while ignoring the huge contributions to his victories provided by others. His air force got wiped out in minutes due to his short sightedness, and he shelled Seoul for absolutely no reason. 1. That's really more of a character flaw than a command flaw. 2. To be fair, absolutely nobody expected Pearl Harbor, and we had no idea about the efficacy of long-range carrier-based attacks. 3. In hindsight there was no reason. There may have been troops there, which we now now was not the case. |
|
