Search the archive:
 YaBB - Yet another Bulletin Board
 
   
 
  Simviation Forum › Real World › History › Why We Fight
(Moderators: Mitch., Fly2e, ozzy72, beaky, Clipper, JBaymore, Bob70, BigTruck)
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print
Why We Fight (Read 4906 times)
Reply #30 - Oct 3rd, 2012 at 9:37am

Strategic Retreat   Offline
Colonel
Wish people were less
idiotic as an average

Posts: 603
 *****
 
C wrote on Oct 1st, 2012 at 4:11pm:
Strategic Retreat wrote on Oct 1st, 2012 at 6:25am:
I seriously doubt, with the advance of aerial power happened in the twenty years between the two wars, that a war of attrition would have happened in the given scenario. More like the Stukas (at the time a more than adequate tool for infantry support. Way better than any other form of artillery) would have had A LOT to say on how the supposed battle was to end... and not well for the UK... but rather quickly, I believe. So quickly that a real war of attrition scenario would not have had a concrete way to realize itself.


I didn't say it would have been a two way war of attrition. We (the allies) would have been, bombed, panzered and overrun by the end of 1940 at the latest. We'd have lost. Comprehensively.

Smiley


In your interpretation you speak of mere months before the Allies' defeat, but by its own definition "Attrition" happens if both sides can hold their own for a while... in terms of war, one year or more, before one of the sides would wear out so badly to cave in. What you described is better defined as a "rout", not real "Attrition".

Not the kind of trench warfare attrition happened during WWI a little everywhere in Europe, nor even the stalemate of the Axis against the Russians on the river Don during WWII, surely. THAT was war of attrition, what you describe... just isn't. Tongue
 
There is no such a thing as overkill. Only unworthy targets.
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Reply #31 - Oct 3rd, 2012 at 1:19pm

C   Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144
 *****
 
Strategic Retreat wrote on Oct 3rd, 2012 at 9:37am:
C wrote on Oct 1st, 2012 at 4:11pm:
Strategic Retreat wrote on Oct 1st, 2012 at 6:25am:
I seriously doubt, with the advance of aerial power happened in the twenty years between the two wars, that a war of attrition would have happened in the given scenario. More like the Stukas (at the time a more than adequate tool for infantry support. Way better than any other form of artillery) would have had A LOT to say on how the supposed battle was to end... and not well for the UK... but rather quickly, I believe. So quickly that a real war of attrition scenario would not have had a concrete way to realize itself.


I didn't say it would have been a two way war of attrition. We (the allies) would have been, bombed, panzered and overrun by the end of 1940 at the latest. We'd have lost. Comprehensively.

Smiley


In your interpretation you speak of mere months before the Allies' defeat, but by its own definition "Attrition" happens if both sides can hold their own for a while... in terms of war, one year or more, before one of the sides would wear out so badly to cave in. What you described is better defined as a "rout", not real "Attrition".

Not the kind of trench warfare attrition happened during WWI a little everywhere in Europe, nor even the stalemate of the Axis against the Russians on the river Don during WWII, surely. THAT was war of attrition, what you describe... just isn't. Tongue


Apologies for my poor use of the English language.

Now I must go and split some hairs... Smiley
 
Back to top 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
  « Home ‹ Board Top of this page

Simviation Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5 AE!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2010. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge