...from same book page 35:
''Kennedy's immediate adversary.....was First Lieutenant Tagaki.....commander of a 235-man outpost ....of his own 229th...
..yes, like other wars--modern and old--if there is no final objective/''major'' objective/basic objective -then you have problems
..but how far...
..so they could not effectively support each other.......?
..now that I think about it, the Victory Disease--- and quick victories-- had an effect on planning--as belasar points out...they moved and won so...
..thank you...so if I get you right, and I think I have read about this = it's something akin to planning and various plans being discussed as to...
..I'm not surprised or doubt it...there is corruption/etc all over ........with China's population = more chances of more, a variety, etc of...
must've been a lot of matting.....not an easy job
...so you think the Brits are weak/lazy/no good/etc??!!
....they only won the war because of the AIM9L and because of fuses!!!
got ya on that one...
...it's like saying if the Enterprise [ name your carrier ] was lost at Pearl, the US would've lost
come on --that's another quote for headlines only
ty --roger that
sure--fuses win the WAR!!!
....remember -a mediocre weapon in trained, motivated hands is better than a great weapon in untrained, ''unmotivated'' hands
.....I remember an...
wow --that is a very optimistic/bold/''unprovable'' quote
..o yes, the Falklands War is another example where the participant had nukes, but it did not stop the conflict from starting
thanks for the info
...so, you are supposed to have a 3-1 advantage in the attack--so the Brits did very well, IMO
...and for a specific battle...
..a lot of the books do
...close but no cigar
...like people say Guadalcanal was a ''close battle''--but I've posted on WW2F of how it wasn't
..what was Henderson--not packed coral, was it? just leveled and rolled? they finally put in Marston matting?
but they won.......?