quote:
Originally posted by Gryphin:
The name of the book I mentioned was:
"Numbers, Predictions and War"
It gets a lot of hits at Google.com
rdouglass,
"In SE or in real life, technolgy almost always wins. Period."
Your key word is, "Almost". For Example the highly trained and technology superior German Army of WWII vs the untrained masses of equipment of the Russian army. It was however a Phyric Vitory if you look at the kill ratio.
In the case of the Germans, I believe, they failed in the "Art of War".
"There is an exception to every rule. Including that one"
This is enough. I know first-handly how arrogant is western public (consequence of Cold war propaganda) about WWII. But for God sake, how can anyone talk about WWII without any knowledge of T-34, IL-2, KV-1, Katusha, Yak-1/3/7/9, etc. ?
PS. Well, I should concur about "highly trained" note. The 37-38 purge deprived Red Army of 2/3 of command personnel. Nobody knows fo sure, but it is highly likely that was the major reason for disastrous 41 compain. Whatever the modern historians say, Hitler was far from being stupid when he planned 41 invasion of Soviet Union. Barbarossa was a very clever plan, it just did nor work. 40-41 were the lowest point of Red Army readiness. The mass production of T-34 started in January of 41. One year delay and Wermacht (spl, sorry) would not advance farther then Brest.
[ 25 April 2002: Message edited by: oleg ]
[ 25 April 2002: Message edited by: oleg ]
[ 25 April 2002: Message edited by: oleg ]
Re: SE4 Strategy - An Art or a Science?
Threaded Mode