(NOTE BE NEW READERS: read the thread. There's a lot that's good and doesn't get threadmarked...
User | Total |
---|---|
brmj | 1 |
7734 | 56 |
Winged_One² | 1 |
True, but that might be something that we'll have to compromise on -- the only way we'd get enough votes would be to band together with the "we'll be back" group. I wanted to do a plan like yours, titled "if it bleeds, we can kill it", but globalwarmth beat me to the punch and got something started before me.My plan also includes Mr. Benz, but also includes Mr. Fenrus, who I think we will find possesses more relevant expertise for our purposes than Mr. Eberhart. We are supposed to be designing a breakthrough vehicle, so it seems prudent to have assistance experienced in breakthrough operations, rather than infantry tactics. Including Mr. Eberhart seems as though it would naturally lead to the potentially dangerous supposition that the purpose of this vehicle is to support the infantry, when it is clear that the infantry will not be (and cannot practically be) the source of the breakthroughs our vehicle is required to produce.
True, but that might be something that we'll have to compromise on -- the only way we'd get enough votes would be to band together with the "we'll be back" group. I wanted to do a plan like yours, titled "if it bleeds, we can kill it", but globalwarmth beat me to the punch and got something started before me.
Besides, as of right now the only things we would really be able to do "breakthrough" antics with would be lotsa Poor Bloody Infantry with a few tanks sprinkled in for flavor. What WWII showed us was that tanks were of more use killing the other guy's tanks, which was the direction that most tank warfare ended up going in, but as of right now our most probable threat is enemy infantry, because there aren't enough tanks in circulation to be a major factor yet. In that sense, we'd most likely be working with infantry or leading the charge anyways.
Besides, as of right now the only things we would really be able to do "breakthrough" antics with would be lotsa Poor Bloody Infantry with a few tanks sprinkled in for flavor. What WWII showed us was that tanks were of more use killing the other guy's tanks, which was the direction that most tank warfare ended up going in, but as of right now our most probable threat is enemy infantry, because there aren't enough tanks in circulation to be a major factor yet. In that sense, we'd most likely be working with infantry or leading the charge anyways.
My plan also includes Mr. Benz, but also includes Mr. Fenrus, who I think we will find possesses more relevant expertise for our purposes than Mr. Eberhart. We are supposed to be designing a breakthrough vehicle, so it seems prudent to have assistance experienced in breakthrough operations, rather than infantry tactics. Including Mr. Eberhart seems as though it would naturally lead to the potentially dangerous supposition that the purpose of this vehicle is to support the infantry, when it is clear that the infantry will not be (and cannot practically be) the source of the breakthroughs our vehicle is required to produce.
I'd actually say at this point, that its neither killing infantry nor tanks which should be the primary goal of our tanks, but rather getting into the enemy rear, destroying artillery and logistical infrastructure, forcing the enemy to react to them (potentially to their disadvantage elsewhere), and generally causing chaos; these are all things which are traditionally the purview of the cavalry. I see killing enemy line troops is important only in as much as it allows our tanks to more easily get to grips with these targets.
Yep. That's why I end up having to manage several different iterations of the same vote when I tally.[X] plan We'll be back
I don't know why no one wants to use proper plan formatting. It's literally just adding a dash in front of every line after the first.
I don't know why no one wants to use proper plan formatting. It's literally just adding a dash in front of every line after the first.