"We thought after we made it there the enemy would flee, but it didn't turn out that way."
"We thought after we made it there the enemy would flee, but it didn't turn out that way."


"We thought after we made it there the enemy would flee, but it didn't turn out that way."
You're viewing a single thread.
I wonder who of these strategists had the brilliant idea to drip-feed amphibious landing parties into a fully manned frontline in an area under complete enemy surveillance in the middle of losing a war of attrition
Critical support to the U.S. having horrible military strategies???
I'm not sure it was the US's idea. Same as with Bakhmut i think they were telling Ukraine to stop throwing away resources on other fronts and just put everything they have into attacking in Zaporozhye to cut the land bridge. (Which is also bad advice since that was the most highly fortified and mined section of the front as we saw, and concentrating assets like that just makes them easier targets for Russian artillery, but that's a whole other discussion.)
I think the Dnieper crossing gambit was a British idea, they are enamored with these sorts of flashy special forces operations whereas the Americans favor simpler brute force solutions (usually involving just bombing everything from the air, something which cannot be done against Russian AD).
I was just listening to the trashfuture episode on the Falklands war, and fuck me if it isn't exactly the same thing.
They're so desperate to do special forces stuff, they are so absolutely obsessed with a squad of elite supersoldiers doing what no one else dares, overcoming all odds through grit and determination by being superior heroic individuals. And then, when all that failed, the Royal Navy bombarded the hills opposite the Argentinian position and they surrendered immediately with no further shots fired.
Gallipoli intensifies