tribesy bought a ban?
Printable View
tribesy bought a ban?
I WW is hardly my thing, but I'd like to add one thing.
I am just after reading the Galizian War about Austro-Hungarian battles with the Russians (Germant activities were less important than usually believed).
My opinion is that in the east initially neither side could commit forces able to cover the entire frontline and later the size of the front was still an extremely important factor.
The facts meant the first years of conflict were full of higly mobile offensives and counter-offensives - if there were enough troops to create a stable position in the center, there were always the Carpatian Mountains to outflank them, if the mountains were blocked there was central Poland where only the Russians could commit massive forces attempting to steamroll the Central States'' armies.
However there were still moments where both sides were stuck in combat unable to outfalnk the enemy or simply fighting for some important transport route e.g. just like during the battle at Kraków. In those cases the clashes quickly became rather similar to great attrition battles of the west.
Because the Russians were usually the side which was unable to provide enough firepower they were suffering more which stopped more than one of their offensive actions, but the same could apply to the Austrians for example during later attempts to de-block Przemyśl.
Quite often generals who seemed rather capable and competent were simply helpless facing entrentched enemies and superior artillery sometimes in difficult terrain.
Russian armies suffered horrendous losses at Kraków or when storming Przemyśl, not to mention the Austrian-German breakthrough at Gorlice, but the Austo-Hungarian army paid their price during the winter offensives in the mountains.
Compared to these battles such as the one at Kraśnik
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
allowed more even if circumstances could be less forgiving than during the attrition battles.
But of course I no expert when it comes to the subject.
I got that he thinks it's funny that I don't view killing Mahdi Militia as immoral, but I don't want to respond to him until I know who Tribesman is and fully understand his post.
And it's a big loss not to know him, have you never wondered where that black hole in your soul comes from? :sweatdrop:
It's not from never meeting Tribesman.
I don't hate his guts(surprise, surprise! :laugh4:), he has a somewhat aggressive way to express himself but once you realize that he often actually does have a relatively good point, you can get to appreciate his posts. Once in a while he also posts a link for us mere mortals to get a glimpse of his wisdom.
What started that whole thing between you two anyways?
Anyway, I think when it comes down to it, Tribes generally always had good points to make, but was an abysmal salesman. He was the Hannibal of the Backroom, he knew how to be victorious, but didn't know what to do with it.
Made a stupid post after van Gogh was murdered, meant it at the time so that's on me. But that was 5 years ago I have changed I am no longer like that, was, but not anymore. So at the time he was right.
edit, you cannot understand how angry I have been, still am, this is never going to heal it's not possible.
Tribesman changed your life.
[insert picture of Tribes and Fragony hugging]
I've usually thought that he and some others take you as a bit more xenophobic than you really are, but sometimes people form an opinion and keep it even if the person changes. It becomes a prejudice. :yes: