Iron Clan
Latest topics
» The Cup of Nations season XVI
by Aristocrat Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:17 pm

» RTW Ranks: by Zyzz and Luke
by zer0 Sun Jul 16, 2017 7:52 am

» Joining Iron
by Aristocrat Wed Jul 12, 2017 3:18 pm

» Members list
by Aristocrat Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:50 am

» Warhammer Quick battle ranking
by zer0 Sat May 27, 2017 3:41 pm

» Rome screens
by zer0 Tue Apr 25, 2017 9:37 am

» Macedon vs Macedon tournament
by zer0 Sat Apr 08, 2017 5:29 pm

» Macedon vs Macedon tournament
by zer0 Sat Apr 08, 2017 5:29 pm

» Team Victories
by zer0 Tue Apr 04, 2017 7:39 am

July 2017
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Calendar Calendar

Music NEW

RTW: Historical Accuracy

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: RTW: Historical Accuracy

Post by Bloodstar on Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:59 am

8) Canatbrian Circle: This method of shooting arrows by horse archers was employed by the Cantabri tribes of Iberia, not every single horse archer unit or jav cav unit available. The Scythians, Huns, and Parthians used a technique now popularly known as the Parthian Shot. In this, the horse archers would feign retreat, and while the enemy cavalry pursued, the horse archers would tuen in their saddles, dar and nock an arrow, and loose it at the enemy.

This requires superb horsemanship, as while turning in their saddle, the horsemen (no stirrup was invented at that time) must guide the beast with just his thighs. It was used with devastating effects in the Battle of Carrhae.

"The Cantabrian circle (Latin: circulus cantabricus) was a military tactic employed by ancient and to a lesser extent medieval horse archers. As Flavius Arrianus and Hadrian relate, this was the most habitual form to appear in combat of the Cantabri tribes, and Rome adopted it after the Cantabrian Wars."- Wikipedia.

"The Parthian shot was a military tactic made famous by the Parthians, an ancient Iranian people. The Parthian archers mounted on light horse, while retreating at a full gallop, would turn their bodies back to shoot at the pursuing enemy. The maneuver required superb equestrian skills, since the rider's hands were occupied by his bow. As the stirrup had not been invented at the time of the Parthians, the rider relied solely on pressure from his legs to guide his horse. The tactic also could be used during feigned retreat, with devastating effect.
This tactic was used by most Eurasian nomads, including the Scythians, Huns, Turks, Magyars, and Mongols, and it eventually spread to armies away from the Eurasian steppe, such as the Sassanid clibanarii and cataphracts."- Wikipedia
avatar
Bloodstar
Master
Master

Posts : 32
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2016-05-31

Back to top Go down

Re: RTW: Historical Accuracy

Post by Guest on Mon Aug 01, 2016 10:43 pm

Why do you even bother Star? Obviously Aragon knows better than that book. He also knows better what is Blitzkrieg than Heinz Guderian. He also knows that Tito was uber capitalist and many other things.
You just cant argue with that amount of knowledge man, just drop it.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: RTW: Historical Accuracy

Post by Aragon on Tue Aug 02, 2016 12:47 am

You must read "Ww2 by the netherlands authors". Also, study up on the doctrine of human waves.

Finally, Blitzkrieg was pure brute force, with little tactic. Apparently Heinz Guderian wrote an entire book just to say "rufl lets use brute furce:)"

Aragon

Posts : 70
Reputation : -4
Join date : 2015-02-04

Back to top Go down

Re: RTW: Historical Accuracy

Post by Bloodstar on Tue Aug 02, 2016 3:44 am

@Aragon and @marko-earth
Idk what you guys are talking about, but Blitzkrieg utilised surprise and sheer brute force (like Aragon said). Air support was also needed. Aircrafts would bomb enemy positions and weaken it. Then combined arms of infantry and tanks would attack adn breakthrough. As the attack was a sudden surprise attack, the enenmy wouldn't be able to call reinforcements. Thus the enmey line would be breached. Then the enemy can be encircled or defeated piecemeal.
It comes from the German term for 'lightning war'.
And many historians like Kurt Student thought it wasn't a tactic, but just Germany using what it had beneficially. Some historians think of it as 'just brute force'.
avatar
Bloodstar
Master
Master

Posts : 32
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2016-05-31

Back to top Go down

Re: RTW: Historical Accuracy

Post by Guest on Tue Aug 02, 2016 10:09 am

Well, thats exactly what Guderian wrote in his book and what Blitzkrieg is. Still obviously that both of you were wrong, Aragon knows much better whats Blitzkrieg.
Also ask him about Tito, he will give you nice explanation that he was the greatest capitalist that ever lived.
Human waves were never ever used in any war according to him, and surely never in WW2.
Also on your theme, stop reading crap books Star and start listening master Aragon, he is just always right.
When you realize that, you will enlighten yourself.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: RTW: Historical Accuracy

Post by Aragon on Tue Aug 02, 2016 10:19 am

Well, thats exactly what Guderian wrote in his book and what Blitzkrieg is.

xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Really? Can you show the quotation of Guderian saying that? I sure as hell don't remember reading that in any book he wrote.

Maybe it says it in the Magnus Opus: wW2 by the netherland authors (this is a meme).


Aircrafts would bomb enemy positions and weaken it. Then combined arms of infantry and tanks would attack adn breakthrough

Which is the opposite of "brute force". The word brute denotes an act without reason or sapience (i.e attacking for the sake of attacking). Which is obviously not something ever used by German military planners. Concentrating forces in a specific location for a breakthrough and subsequent envelopment is basically the direct opposite of "brusque/brute" warfare. "Brute force" (a retarded term invented by that freak Marko-Earth, a pedophile btw) conjures up ideas like: Carpet bombing; massive and prolonged artillery barrages etc.... And ofc Blitzkrieg was never a strategic or tactical or operational doctrine. It wasn't even a "type" of warfare. Its simply a term used by propagandists and historians alike to describe generalities used early in the war by Germany. It was never mentioned either by the Heer or Luftwaffe.

Oh BTW Bloodstar: I suggest not engaging with Earth (marko-earth) whatsoever. Ask your own clanmates why. He is deeply mentally disturbed, it is why they kicked him from this clan.

Aragon

Posts : 70
Reputation : -4
Join date : 2015-02-04

Back to top Go down

Re: RTW: Historical Accuracy

Post by Guest on Tue Aug 02, 2016 10:31 am

http://w11.zetaboards.com/Total_War_Hub/topic/11676709/10/
Here you have an interesting conversation about the themes.
But I guess its much easier to bend the knees and kneel before the Superman Aragon, cause he is always right.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: RTW: Historical Accuracy

Post by Aragon on Tue Aug 02, 2016 10:34 am

Its funny the level of insanity in Earth's little ~70 IQ brain. I ask him to cite (any) source:

"rufl aragon is elweys write hi is nut:)".

I'll wait for that quote from Guderian describing Blitzkrieg as "pure brute force, with little tactic". Because you know, he wrote several tactical manuals just to say "just use brute force xD kek".

Even now that I've asked him for the source, Earth won't try to post it (obviously it doesn't exist). Instead he'll repeat some monkey reply and humiliate himself further, as he always does. Read this forum when your clanmates shat on his face xD

Aragon

Posts : 70
Reputation : -4
Join date : 2015-02-04

Back to top Go down

Re: RTW: Historical Accuracy

Post by Guest on Tue Aug 02, 2016 10:36 am

Also I dont need to seek for any quotation for you or any proof, those are facts accepted by any sane man and literally every historian and scientist and surely I wont go to libraries to take pictures of quotation like Bloodstar did here, where you will call my language Orcish one and then I ll be called from your mindless horde racist while you will be fighter freedom.
So piss off and stop making an idiot of yourself on every forum you visit.
You find me anything of what you claim anyone wrote or confirmed anywhere, otherwise really piss off you clown, cause once again, I wont bother to seek quotes for your circus party of something that every intelligent being that passed trough 8 degrees of school knows.
Now be gone and piss off.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: RTW: Historical Accuracy

Post by Guest on Tue Aug 02, 2016 10:42 am

And surely wont write you an essay which proves what or exactly where he said. Everyone who red the book, or red anything about WW2 battles, knows what Blitzkrieg and Human waves are.
And now only what you can say over everything is give me direct quote where he said `It is brute force`. I cant remember, but probably nowhere. But you know, thats something what sane people can draw as a conclusion after they read the book(s). And since you red l;ike 0 book in your life, all you can write is crap from your head or direct copy paste blocks from internet sites and wikipedia as you always do.
Now once again for normal people and scientists I have nothing to prove, they know well who is right.
And if your traveling circus company want to prove something, well go ahead and prove. By quotations, essays, mindless gibbering or what so ever...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: RTW: Historical Accuracy

Post by Aragon on Tue Aug 02, 2016 10:50 am

Aragon the Prophet wrote:I'll wait for that quote from Guderian describing Blitzkrieg as "pure brute force, with little tactic". Because you know, he wrote several tactical manuals just to say "just use brute force xD kek".

rufl wrote:Also I dont need to seek for any quotation for you or any proof, those are facts accepted by any sane man and literally every historian and scientist and surely I wont go to libraries to take pictures of quotation

So if anyone is curious on the pathology of the chimpanzee pedophile Earth it is this:

1) Make an idiotic claim ("blitzkrieg brute force:)").
2) Fail to provide any proof or material evidence for it.
3) When confronted by a lack of proof (he claims there is much) he simply says "rufl everyon knows it dude:)"

Its the pathology of a fucking imbecile. How does it feel knowing you are Dunning Krueger in the flesh? lmao.

Now once again for normal people and scientists I have nothing to prove, they know well who is right.

Scientist? You mean like me? Someone who actually graduated in a technical STEM background? And unlike you, a 27 year old sped monkey who has spent 9 years studying history and failing to graduate at your university?

You say you don't want to argue but you do. You just know you can never win lol. So why do you try? Cuckold syndrome.

Aragon

Posts : 70
Reputation : -4
Join date : 2015-02-04

Back to top Go down

Re: RTW: Historical Accuracy

Post by Guest on Tue Aug 02, 2016 11:11 am

I dont need to prove to YOU and your FLYING CIRCUS nothing!
See thats the difference of proving anything to anyone.
I write things from my head, cause I red hundreds of thousands of pages of history, psychology, antropology or any other kind of a philosophy books. I dont need exact quotations to prove anything to mindless zombies to you. At 1st cause I dont have all these books near my hand, and 2nd I give you the names of the books, and if you are willing to read them, do it(of you are not) and on what way you are going to interpreted the book I dont care. If you understand all wrong there, then its something wrong with your twisted minds, not the book, not me, not world widely accepted scientific facts.
Further, I am not the one who is trying to break down world wide accepted theories(facts), its you. So if anyone has to quote something its you. What you ask of me is like TW show director will ask some someone to strip naked to prove his/hers gender. Surely no one sane will do that.
But yes I can show direct quotes to a kid or a man to whom I really see someone who is interested in facts. In that case I can give myself into it and help him/her.
And surely I can make a mistake, once again cause many things I red, red 10 or more years ago, and ofc cause I am no superman like you. Ofc of 100k and more posts you posted by now in RTW world you were always right and noone ever won you. Does that says something to you?
And ofc you easily graduated the hardest faculty that ever existed on planet Earth, cause you are supermen. (tho I ask myslef how you achieved that by sleeping over forums 15h+ writing pure nonsense? Oh right, supermen).
So you see changing of subjects, twisting the stories, pure lies, idiotic behavior, followed by spits and curses that would never occur on the mind even of medieval peasant are something you doing your entire life. Your entire fucking life.
So sorry if someone dont take you for serious and consider you a moron. I am sure no one will take the bait that you graduated anything, cause its obvious you didnt.
So for now, you are free to piss off again.
And sincere wishes from me to cure your depression and schizophrenia, but you wont be able to do that unless seek for some help.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: RTW: Historical Accuracy

Post by Guest on Tue Aug 02, 2016 11:18 am

In either case what Blitzkrieg and Human waves are you have here for now explained trough battles of WW2
http://i.imgur.com/okr4Uly.png
http://i.imgur.com/vVBrwD5.png
http://w11.zetaboards.com/Total_War_Hub/topic/11676709/10/
Same you will find in Oxfords Illustrated history of WW2.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: RTW: Historical Accuracy

Post by Guest on Tue Aug 02, 2016 11:40 am

Once again, funny thing that here, both Bloodstar and me said exactly by the same explanation what is Blitzkrieg, so did fucking Heinz Guderian in his book. So did told every historian, Bloodstar even named one. Even Oxfords illustrated history of WW2 says, even WW2 written by the group of Dutch authors(guy is laughing cause I dont know the names of all of them-more than 10 lol).
Finally all he can write is `bahahahahaha, lmfalmfalmfao, xdxdxd`, to have some hysterical attack of laughter and to write bullshit, like `everyone knows I am right, Gwyndane, Zeke, Morgvus, screw Guderian and history books. I am always right, I am superman`.
Well you are in your pathetic mind and you will always remain that.
Once again, go seek some help, all along with your uneducated company.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: RTW: Historical Accuracy

Post by Guest on Tue Aug 02, 2016 11:46 am

@Aragon wrote:
Aragon the Prophet wrote:I'll wait for that quote from Guderian describing Blitzkrieg as "pure brute force, with little tactic". Because you know, he wrote several tactical manuals just to say "just use brute force xD kek".

rufl wrote:Also I dont need to seek for any quotation for you or any proof, those are facts accepted by any sane man and literally every historian and scientist and surely I wont go to libraries to take pictures of quotation

So if anyone is curious on the pathology of the chimpanzee pedophile Earth it is this:

1) Make an idiotic claim ("blitzkrieg brute force:)").
2) Fail to provide any proof or material evidence for it.
3) When confronted by a lack of proof (he claims there is much) he simply says "rufl everyon knows it dude:)"

Its the pathology of a fucking imbecile. How does it feel knowing you are Dunning Krueger in the flesh? lmao.

Now once again for normal people and scientists I have nothing to prove, they know well who is right.

Scientist? You mean like me? Someone who actually graduated in a technical STEM background? And unlike you, a 27 year old sped monkey who has spent 9 years studying history and failing to graduate at your university?

You say you don't want to argue but you do. You just know you can never win lol. So why do you try? Cuckold syndrome.
1.To prove that `idiotic claim`, I wrote entire essay how did looked Blitzkrieg battles.
2.I gave you 3 books by now. Bloodstar named even one historian. But even that does not need, every historian claim the same lol. Still we need `to prove something to you`. What? do you keep even 0.1% of sanity in yourself?
3.What lack of proof? You want me to write every possible book about WW2? OK 95% of the books will say the same. Here we go. Now go read and educate yourself once in your boring life.
Now piss off you clown lol!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: RTW: Historical Accuracy

Post by Aragon on Tue Aug 02, 2016 11:48 am

I dont need to prove to YOU and your FLYING CIRCUS nothing!
See thats the difference of proving anything to anyone.
I write things from my head, cause I red hundreds of thousands of pages of history, psychology, antropology or any other kind of a philosophy books. I dont need exact quotations to prove anything to mindless zombies to you.



n either case what Blitzkrieg and Human waves are you have here for now explained trough battles of WW2
http://i.imgur.com/okr4Uly.png
http://i.imgur.com/vVBrwD5.png

So your "proof" is to link pictures of your own posts? You have got to be fucking joking, L M F A O.

From your screenshot:

"German armoured troops were much better equipped and had quantitative quality over France and allies in armor"



LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL I'll show you how to actually debate, you stupid fucking monkey. How the fuck do you go around preaching about "rufl evirone knows this fact:)" when it is COUNTER TO EVERY FUCKING HISTORIAN OUT THERE THAT IN 1940 THE FRENCH TANK CORPS WERE BOTH LARGER (TOTAL NUMBER OF TANKS) AND OF BETTER OVERALL QUALITY YOU DUMB MONKEY?:

"The Blitzkrieg Legend: The 1940 Campaign in the West"
Karl-Heinz Frieser, 2005

IN FACT HOW CAN YOU FUCKING SAY THE GERMAN ARMOURED CORPS HAD BETTER TANKS WHEN MOST OF THE TANKS IN 1940 WERE PANZER I AND PANZER II, ARMED WITH THE UBER POWERFUL 37mm GUNS LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. You stupid dumb fuck, hang yourself.


Aragon

Posts : 70
Reputation : -4
Join date : 2015-02-04

Back to top Go down

Re: RTW: Historical Accuracy

Post by Aragon on Tue Aug 02, 2016 11:50 am

2.I gave you 3 books by now. Bloodstar named even one historian. But even that does not need, every historian claim the same lol. Still we need `to prove something to you`. What? do you keep even 0.1% of sanity in yourself?
Still we need `to prove something to you`. What? do you keep even 0.1% of sanity in yourself?

rofl you deluded freak. Bloodstar named 1 historian regarding the USE OF HORSES IN ANCIENT WARFARE. ABout a topic he ALREADY admitted he was wrong in you fucking freak. What "3 books" have you named?:

Achtung Panzer by Guderian? Where he DOES NOT SAY that? lmao. Or maybe its "ww2 by the netherland authors"? That? rofl.

Jesus christ you are just a fucking animal. No wonder your gf cucked you, dumb shit.

Now piss off you clown lol!


Why would I "piss off"? They kicked you out of this clan because they couldn't fucking stand you lmao. Camaga, vT, Clive etc... all fucking shit on your worthless face. Even that Zig character seems to piss on you lately xD

Aragon

Posts : 70
Reputation : -4
Join date : 2015-02-04

Back to top Go down

Re: RTW: Historical Accuracy

Post by Guest on Tue Aug 02, 2016 11:57 am

SEE, WHATS THE FUCKING POINT ME OR ANYONE ELSE WRITING ALL UP? You will just ignore it and write something that has nothing with the fucking theme, twisting, lying, and having more and more idiotic claims. Oh wait it was never problem to you.
Just go and cure yourself moron. And find someone else to `debate`.
Debating with someone who just goes and goes and write and write, nothing related to the subject, and if I continue he will finally reach from this subject to the prehistoric customs near Neandertal valley.
Piss of and go and cure yourself!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: RTW: Historical Accuracy

Post by Aragon on Tue Aug 02, 2016 11:59 am

You do realize not 1 person has ever thought you were 'right', correct? Not even zig/dion etc.. (in this topics). You do know they all literally just laugh at the kind of monkey you are?

So why not be a monkey and go and eat your own shit.

Aragon

Posts : 70
Reputation : -4
Join date : 2015-02-04

Back to top Go down

Re: RTW: Historical Accuracy

Post by Guest on Tue Aug 02, 2016 12:01 pm

In either case what a sick creature lol.
If its him only debating with me, but it goes with everyone. Here he started with Bloodstar, go and see every of his posts, even with his minions(thats why they are so fund of him-stupidity) is him proving his smartness, perfectness and great knowledge.
Does that says something about you?
So yea you won literally every possible debate with everyone else, cause they say piss of like me, or `hm, ok, leave this one alone, he need help`.
You pathetic mongrel!
Once again, go seek some help in time, before its too late `supermen`.
Fucking idiot lol!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: RTW: Historical Accuracy

Post by Aragon on Tue Aug 02, 2016 12:04 pm

Earth, you told Tara you see a psychiatrist and you told me 1 year ago that you tried to commit suicide. If anyone 'needs help', who possibly needs it more than you? lmao.

You've lost everything: Your clan, your gf (to an african refugee), your "dignity". Look at you. Even your "allies" piss and shit on you. Who "supports" you? In anything? No one.

Aragon

Posts : 70
Reputation : -4
Join date : 2015-02-04

Back to top Go down

Re: RTW: Historical Accuracy

Post by Guest on Tue Aug 02, 2016 12:43 pm

Man, I DONT NEED anyone to support me in anything. I am doing what I believe its right and I know its right.
And all you wrote up is or a pure lie or made up thing.
Like I said this is new attempt to bring `debate` to some totally different theme.
From the other hand, you are the one jumping from forum to forum, proving to anyone who write something your `great knowledge` about everything.
See you even blinded Spetz who also do not reed as you. He sent me Wikipedia text to prove me you are right, and very 1st paragraph:
Blitzkrieg (German, "lightning war"About this sound listen (helpĀ·info)) is a method of warfare whereby an attacking force spearheaded by a dense concentration of armoured and motorised or mechanised infantry formations with close air support, breaks through the opponent's line of defence by short, fast, powerful attacks and then dislocates the defenders, using speed and surprise to encircle them.[1][2][3] Through the employment of combined arms in manoeuvre warfare, blitzkrieg attempts to unbalance the enemy by making it difficult for it to respond to the continuously changing front and defeating it in a decisive Vernichtungsschlacht ("battle of annihilation").[2][3][4][5] says exactly what I said here http://i.imgur.com/vVBrwD5.png
What Bloodstar said here:
Idk what you guys are talking about, but Blitzkrieg utilised surprise and sheer brute force (like Aragon said). Air support was also needed. Aircrafts would bomb enemy positions and weaken it. Then combined arms of infantry and tanks would attack adn breakthrough. As the attack was a sudden surprise attack, the enenmy wouldn't be able to call reinforcements. Thus the enmey line would be breached. Then the enemy can be encircled or defeated piecemeal.
It comes from the German term for 'lightning war'.
And many historians like Kurt Student thought it wasn't a tactic, but just Germany using what it had beneficially. Some historians think of it as 'just brute force'.
And what Guderian said in his book, once again, creator of modern Blitzkrieg.
And what every other historian, including the books I mentioned says the same thing.
Yet nice example how people believe to Aragon, just as Spetz did. Lmao guy even sent me one more proof, claiming it supports Aragons claims.
From the other hand I noticed that Aragon used exact copy paste quotes from this Wiki text to `prove he is right, ofc totally out of every context.
So once again piss off you charlatan.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: RTW: Historical Accuracy

Post by Clive on Tue Aug 02, 2016 2:33 pm

I'm sorry Bloodstar.
avatar
Clive
Master
Master

Posts : 426
Reputation : 25
Join date : 2014-11-10

Back to top Go down

Re: RTW: Historical Accuracy

Post by Bloodstar on Tue Aug 02, 2016 3:11 pm

@Clive No need to apologize man. All I see is a bunch of kindergardeners arguing. (Earth and Aragon, it seems like you guys know each other personally, but I suggest you guys stop using personal life as an escuse to justify your argument. It just makes you look stupid.) Both of you guys are right in your own way because even historians are divided on this issue, as I have mentioned in my post. (As usual you guys ignored it adn started taking stuff from my post to prove yourselves right without looking at the whole picture.

"Some senior officers, including Kurt Student, Franz Halder and Johann Adolf von Kielmansegg, even disputed the idea that it was a military concept. Kielmansegg asserted that what many regarded as blitzkrieg was nothing more than "ad hoc solutions that simply popped out of the prevailing situation". Student described it as ideas that "naturally emerged from the existing circumstances" as a response to operational challenges." What this measn is that Kurt student (who btw was a german officer not a historian sorry) thought that Blitzkrieg was just something born out of necessity adn with the weapons that Germans had; it was not a great tactic or a thing that can be used anywhere. (ad hoc means a solution that can't be generalized). Of course historians dispute this. Everyone has their own arguments. Stop behaving like clowns.
avatar
Bloodstar
Master
Master

Posts : 32
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2016-05-31

Back to top Go down

Re: RTW: Historical Accuracy

Post by Guest on Tue Aug 02, 2016 3:43 pm

1.Aragon is doing what he is doing I described up. He will laugh on everything, you or anyone else write, even nowhere is written or supported what he claim, while I gave the names of the books where my claims can be founded. Hell even Aragons major ally Wikipedia claim the same.
He is just insane.
2.Ofc you wont find term in Achtung panzer usage of term brute force, tho some historians openly do so. Still when you read the book you see that its exactly what it is.
3.I wrote up how did looked battles of WW2, but I will just state 2 the finest examples of Blitzkrieg-Overlord and Soviet rush trough eastern Europe.
All of them wanted Berlin, greater piece of Germany and finally Europe.
For that they can do only one thing and its to fully use their superiority everywhere w/o some big care for casualties.
4.Now look at some other wars and how long they lasted and how turned to end.
Take Vietnam-where none side used Blitzkrieg. Take Soviets in Afganistan, or wars during 90-ies in ex Yugoslavia. In none of these were used Blitzkrieg, and wars lasted longer, with much more tacticity and less casualties.
5.What tactical war means: well its Alexander the Macedopn against Persians, Kolubara battle of WW1, Stalingrad battle where much lesser number of Soviets hold 10% of the city from the horde of Germans, like I do vs HoS horde. That is tactic and complex strategy to win the battle.
All previous German Blitzkrieg battles and finally 2 major examples of the Blitzkrieg(Overlord and Soviet rush trough Eastern Europe) were exactly what Bloodstar wrote up. Usage of massive concentrations of tanks, armor, artillery and airplanes and finally manpower to break the enemy in short period of time. Shorter the better. Blitzkrieg means that(light or quick war). And for quick victory you need to unleash the greatest possible power at disposal. Once again, thats what is said by Bloodstar, who quoted that from Wikipedia text, which is taken further from history books.
Thank you very much.


Last edited by marko-earth on Wed Aug 03, 2016 3:46 am; edited 1 time in total

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: RTW: Historical Accuracy

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum